A Process Research Framework - Software Engineering Institute ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

77.5 Technology Factor: HeterogeneousComponent-Based SystemsIntegrationThe overall process objective for this node is to establish effectiveprocesses for conceiving, orchestrating, constructing, deploying andevolving complex systems composed from heterogeneous components.In this context, we consider heterogeneous components to include bothsystem components (some of which may be autonomous) and the organizationsthat construct and integrate them.Many of the technologies that we envisage for the future move usaway from hand-crafted, custom-developed solutions into a world ofintegrating heterogeneous, component-based systems. The integrationchallenge in this environment extends beyond the technical integration(though that will be difficult enough) into the socio-technical aspects ofprocess integration in particular.Many industries which have previously not relied on software (such ashousehold appliances and automobiles) are becoming increasingly dependanton its utility. Their ability to produce inexpensive products withacceptable quality levels is critical to their success.7.5.1 Characterizing the Current State of the PracticeOne of the fallacies of our current approach to systems integration is theassumption that high quality, “best of breed” components will automaticallylead to an easily integrable system solution. The emerging literaturein system of systems interoperability highlights the many problemsencountered when components of long-standing use individually arecomposed into a larger system context. The ultimate source of this issueis that systems of systems composed from heterogeneous, oftenautonomous constituents, 18 exhibit emergent properties—properties thatare not present in the individual components, but are exhibited when thesystem operates as a whole.When integrating systems from heterogeneous components, we havetrouble understanding whether the components conform to agreed-uponstandards, especially with “private” components that we must treat asblack boxes. We often do not even understand what data is relevant tocollect from components to analyze service quality across a system context.An exception to this is the open source movement, where standardsconformance and other questions can be answered more transparentlythan with many privately built components.18 By constituents, we mean both the organizational elements involved in the building of asystem or component and the components themselves.80 Process Effects of Emerging Technology Trends | IPRC Framework
When trying to integrate in a context where we’re working with heterogeneousorganizations, we often find a lack of trust among the constituents,increasing the overhead related to managing these types of effortsfor all concerned. One source of this lack of trust is varying capabilityof engineering and project management processes among the constituents.From an SEI process maturity viewpoint, we have trouble resolvingprocess maturity differences among the different constituents. Afrequently cited observation is that, in CMMI math, ML3+ML1=ML1.In other words, higher maturity organizations are more often broughtdown to the level of process performance of their lower maturity partnersthan the opposite.7When it comes to verifying and validating heterogeneously constructedsystems, we do not know how to validate systems against scenarios ofuse that have not yet been conceived, and even if we could envision allthe scenarios of use of a particular system, the cost to test and evaluatethe entire system across all the possible contexts of use is prohibitive.Some organizations have a risk-based approach to evaluating suitabilityof software for integration, but these practices are not widely used. Wedo not have validated techniques for analysis-based verification andvalidation in this space yet (although research in this area has begun). Ingeneral, when it comes to verification and validation, we’re testing thestrength of the bricks, not the strength of the building.One of the benefits of systems integrated from heterogeneous componentsis the potential for beneficial emergent properties to manifest.However, we lack effective methods for analyzing and characterizingthe emergent properties of a heterogeneously composed system, withregard to both beneficial and detrimental emergent properties. [Fisher2006]7.5.2 Characterizing the Desired State of the PracticeThe overall desired state for integrating heterogeneous componentsinto usable systems is to successfully achieve interoperability and otherbeneficial quality factors (e.g., security, privacy) in an environment ofincreasing dynamism.We would use interoperable processes effectively for heterogeneous“planned” systems. Integration checklists would systematically allowrisk-based choices for building initial heterogeneous systems.“Black box” integration would be consistently possible and we wouldtreat components in a black box fashion for integration purposes. Wewould understand and articulate the inherited risks among components.Standard processes, interfaces, and technologies would support consistentlyachieving interoperability.IPRC Framework | Process Effects of Emerging Technology Trends 81
Page 1:
A ProcessResearchFrameworkThe Inter
Page 4:
This report was prepared for theSEI
Page 8:
viIPRC Framework
Page 11 and 12:
Executive SummaryThe discipline of
Page 13 and 14:
Forces Driving Process Research Fra
Page 15 and 16:
Process Research FrameworkThis docu
Page 17 and 18:
MembersTwenty-seven leaders in indu
Page 19 and 20:
A colleague from SAIC, Ms. Mary Ann
Page 21 and 22:
1Introductionto the Framework
Page 23 and 24:
As the work of the IPRC developed,
Page 25 and 26:
1. The Relationships Between Proces
Page 27 and 28:
2Architecture of theResearch Themes
Page 29 and 30:
Managing Project Processes (Section
Page 31 and 32:
2.2 Instantiating the Core ProcessR
Page 33 and 34:
The product, process, people, and p
Page 35 and 36:
2. These advances will be followed
Page 37 and 38:
2.4 How Each Theme Presentation isS
Page 39 and 40:
3Theme Q:The RelationshipsBetween P
Page 41 and 42:
• security• usability (human-ma
Page 43 and 44:
plan to address the underlying issu
Page 45 and 46:
In addition, processes are effectiv
Page 47 and 48:
Q-13 How do we make well-informed d
Page 49 and 50: 4Theme E: ProcessEngineeringThis th
Page 51 and 52: create defined 8 processes for spec
Page 53 and 54: Mechanisms for SpecificationE-5 How
Page 55 and 56: Research questions associated with
Page 59 and 60: 5Theme P: ManagingProject Processes
Page 61 and 62: Developing software across borders
Page 63 and 64: Where higher levels of integration
Page 65 and 66: 5.5.1 Research Node P.1: Operating
Page 67 and 68: P-6 How do we capture and share exp
Page 69 and 70: 5.5.2 Research Node P.2: Managing T
Page 71 and 72: P-27 Do locations need a primary an
Page 73 and 74: 6Theme D:Process DeploymentThis the
Page 75 and 76: Readers need to recognize the criti
Page 77 and 78: Accordingly, processes will be depl
Page 79 and 80: D-6 What is the quantitative relati
Page 81 and 82: The “assess” activity identifie
Page 85 and 86: The objective of process research u
Page 87 and 88: 7 Process Effects ofEmerging Techno
Page 89 and 90: If this sounds like Fred Brooks Jr.
Page 91 and 92: Figure 5 provides a framing of thre
Page 93 and 94: Process ChallengesIntegrated OrHete
Page 95 and 96: and management of stakeholder expec
Page 97 and 98: T-18 What replaces “quality = con
Page 99: have a comfort level with uncertain
Page 103 and 104: T-49 How do we analyze the communic
Page 105 and 106: 8Scenarios
Page 107 and 108: Jurassic Park(Reconfigurable packs
Page 109 and 110: Pandemic Triggers Global Instabilit
Page 111 and 112: Embedded Software Rules(Rapid co-de
Page 113 and 114: 9Sponsor Statements
Page 115 and 116: We also monitor and evaluate the bu
Page 117 and 118: Lockheed Martin Corporation IS&S(Pr
Page 119 and 120: The SEI, with its reputation as a
Page 121 and 122: As a sponsor, TCS has introduced th
Page 123 and 124: A passion for innovation lies at th
Page 125 and 126: Appendix
Page 127 and 128: Research Node S.2: Establishing the
Page 129 and 130: Research Node S.6: Usable SecurityT
Page 131 and 132: Q-16 When composing systems of indi
Page 133 and 134: E-22 How can we define the scope of
Page 135 and 136: E-55 What level of statistical anal
Page 137 and 138: P-10 How do we handle different tim
Page 139 and 140: P-24 How do we identify suitable pa
Page 141 and 142: D-16 What organization-based confid
Page 143 and 144: D-43 What lessons can be learned fr
Page 145 and 146: T-14 How do you sustain and evolve
Page 147 and 148: T-46 How do you analyze data collec
Page 149 and 150: Further Readingand References
Page 151 and 152:
[Boegh 1999]Boegh, J.; Depanfilis,
Page 153 and 154:
[Wang 1999]Wang, W.; Pan, D.; & Che
Page 155 and 156:
[Yoon 2001]Yoon, I.-C.; Min, S.-Y.;
Page 157 and 158:
[Kaba 1995]Kaba, A. B. & Derniame,
Page 159 and 160:
[Becker-Kornstaedt 2002]Becker-Korn
Page 161 and 162:
[Prikladnicki 2003]Prikladnicki, R.
Page 163 and 164:
[Smite 2004]Smite, D. “Global Sof
Page 165 and 166:
[Smith 1996]Smith, M. A.; Mitra, S.
Page 167 and 168:
[Weisbord 1987]Weisbord, M. Product
Page 169 and 170:
Appendix[Beznosov 2005]Beznosov, K.
Page 172:
Julia AllenVic BasiliBarry BoehmGon
show all

A Process Research Framework - Software Engineering Institute ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?