Barry Boehm, Prasanta Bose, "The WinWin Spiral Software Process Model," Proceedings, 3rd ICSP, 1994 (pdf)
A primary difficulty in applying the Spiral model has been the lack of explicit process guidance in determining the prospective system's objectives, constraints, and alternatives that get elaborated in each cycle. This paper presents an extension of the spiral model, called the WinWin process model, which uses the Theory W (win-win) approach to converge on a system's next level objectives, constraints, and alternatives. The WinWin Spiral model explicitly addresses the need for concurrent analysis, risk resolution, definition, and elaboration of both the software product and software process in a collaborative manner. The paper discusses an application of the model, identifies the need for support systems to facilitate cost-effective realization of the model, and describes bootstrap experiments that lead to identifying key capabilities of support systems for the model. The key elements of the evolved WinWin support system developed to meet the needs are also discussed.
Barry Boehm, Prasanta Bose, Ellis Horowitz, Ming June Lee, "Experimental Results from a Prototype Next Generation Process Support System," TRW Systems Integration Group Technology Review, Volume 2, Number 1, Summer 1994 (pdf)
The Next Generation Process Model (NGPM) uses the Theory W steps of win condition identification and negotiation to determine the objectives, constraints, and alternatives required to initiate each cycle of the Spiral Model of software development. The Next Generation Process Support System (NGPSS) is an evolving prototype of a groupware support environment for the NGPM. To test the scalability and process support capabilities of the initial NGPSS-0 prototype, we performed a bootstrap experiment using the NGPSS-0 to: 1) identify NGPSS user, customer, developer, and system engineer win conditions for future versions of the NGPSS, 2) identify win condition conflicts, and 3) resolve the conflicts into points of agreement which then transform into objectives, constraints, and alternatives for NGPSS. The experiment partially confirmed each of the four primary experimental hypotheses. These covered the adequacy of NGPSS-0; the comparability of NGPSS win conditions with a previous set of TRW software environment win conditions; the adequacy of win conditions as generators of Spiral Model objectives, constraints, and alternatives; and the adequacy of the bootstrap process in defining the next increment of NGPSS.
Added June 25th, 2008
Barry Boehm, Prasanta Bose, Ellis Horowitz, Ming June Lee, "Software Requirements as Negotiated Win Conditions," Proceedings of the First International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Colorado Springs, CO, April 18-22, 1994, pp. 74-83 (pdf)
Current processes and support systems for software requirements determination and analysis often neglect critical needs of important classes of stakeholders and limit themselves to concerns of the developers, users and customers. Besides developers, customers, and users, these stakeholders can include maintainers, interfacers, testers, product line managers, and sometimes members of the general public.
This paper describes the results to date in researching and prototyping a Next Generation Process Model (NGPM) and support system (NGPSS) which directly addresses these issues. The NGPM emphasizes collaborative processes, involving all of the significant constituents with a stake in the software product. Its conceptual basis is a set of Theory W (win-win) extensions to the Spiral Model of software development.
Added June 25th, 2008
Barry Boehm, Prasanta Bose, Gregory Toth, "Some Critical Success Factors for Knowledge Based Software Engineering Applications," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Engineering Education, Sorrento, Italy, May, 1994 (pdf)
In the Spring of 1993, the authors participated in a USC seminar course in Knowledge Based Software Engineering (KBSE) which involved the development of ten prototype KBSE applications. Evaluations of these prototype applications indicated a considerable range of relative utility to practicing software engineers. For potential discussion at the SE/ AI workshop, we offer below an analysis of some critical success factors (CSF's) distinguishing the prototypes with more and less utility.
The authors' roles in this situation extended the AI user/ provider model to cover two additional bridge roles (technology advocates and technology receptors) determined by the Software Engineering Institute [Fowler-Rifkin, 1990] to be significant facilitators in software technology transition.
Prasanta Bose, whose primary field has been AI and who served as the course's associate instructor, functioned as a Technology Advocate in advancing AI capabilities for application to software engineering (SE) problems. Barry Boehm, whose primary field has been SE and who served as the course's instructor, functioned as a Technology Receptor interested in finding new KB approaches to SE problems by knowledge mining and knowledge engineering of SE domain experts. Greg Toth represented both ends of the technology transition chain: as a course student producing a prototype KBSE [Toth,1993]; and as a Northrop software manager interested in new tools for Northrop software engineering applications.
Added June 25th, 2008
Prasanta Bose, "Feature-Based Modeling of Software Component Interactions" (pdf)
Complex software-based system design poses significant tractability problems that can be addressed by using higher level abstractions of the design such as architecture level abstractions. The architecture-level design distinguishes coarse-grain components and interactions between them. This paper develops approximate modeling of the interactions between the components in terms of a set of features in order to facilitate limited types of consistency checking of the designs at the conceptualizing stage.
Barry Boehm, Prasanta Bose, "Humans and Process Frameworks: Some Critical Process Elements," Proceedings, Software Process Workshop, 1994 (pdf)
Successful engineering of complex software systems require humans to engage collaboratively in multiple critical process elements. This paper identifies those necessary process elements and defines WinWin, a collaborative process model that addresses the process elements. It briefly describes a process support system for the WinWin model.
Barry Boehm, Prasanta Bose, "A Collaborative Spiral Software Process Model Based on Theory W," Proceedings, Third International Software Process Conference, 1994, pp. 59-68 (pdf)
A primary difficulty in applying the spiral model has been the lack of explicit process guidance in determining the prospective system's objectives, constraints, and alternatives that get elaborated in each cycle. This paper presents an extension of the spiral model, called the Next Generation Process Model (NGPM), which uses the Theory W (win-win) approach [Boehm-Ross, 1989] to converge on a system's next-level objectives, constraints, and alternatives. The refined Spiral Model explicitly addresses the need for concurrent analysis, risk resolution, definition, and elaboration of both the software product and the software process in a collaborative manner. This paper also describes some of the key elements of the support system developed based on the model and refined through experiments with it.
Cristina Gacek, Ahmed Abd-Allah, Bradford Clark, Barry Boehm, "Focused Workshop on Software Architectures: Issue Paper," Knowledge Summary of the USC-CSE Focused Workshop on Software Reuse, Center for Software Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, June 6-9, 1994 (pdf)
The Center for Software Engineering (CSE) at USC is currently involved in research on software architecting and architectures. The main objective of this workshop is to calibrate the CSE architecture research strategy to the Center Affiliates’ needs and priorities. This includes identifying and prioritizing the most critical architecture research issues; clarifying the nature of, and defining the interactions between the architecture subdisciplines (representation, style, domain specific software architectures, process, and infrastructure); and calibrating the maturity of emerging architecture infrastructure technologies with respect to Affiliate-scale needs.
This issue paper is the first step in the Focused Workshop process. It summarizes the CSE architecture research strategy elements and positions, and identifies candidate high-priority issues. The next steps in the process involve feedback from Affiliates on the strategy and issues via position papers and workshop discussions. We also plan to achieve the objectives of clarifying and calibrating the architecture state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice via workshop presentations and discussions.
The strategies in the paper have already been influenced strongly by the USC-CSE Affiliates via the results of the February 1994 Executive Workshop on Information Architectures and Software Product Line Management.
Added June 24th, 2008
Copyright 2008 The University
of Southern California
The written material, text,
graphics, and software available on this page and all related
pages may be copied, used, and distributed freely as long as the
University of Southern California as the source of the material,
text, graphics or software is always clearly indicated and such
acknowledgement always accompanies any reuse or redistribution
of the material, text, graphics or software; also permission to
use the material, text, graphics or software on these pages does
not include the right to repackage the material, text, graphics
or software in any form or manner and then claim exclusive proprietary
ownership of it as part of a commercial offering of services or
as part of a commercially offered product.