Die Zukunft der Software- & Systementwicklung
Herausforderungen und Potenzial der Digitalisierung
Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2017, WKOÖ
In der Software- und Systementwicklung gibt es viele Herausforderungen:
- Wieviel Digitalisierung benötigt Ihr Software-Produktentwicklungsprozess?
- Sind Sie unsicher wie Ihre Software mit der Hardware zusammenhängt? Was ist von Änderungen betroffen und wurde alles getestet?
- Haben Sie noch die Übersicht, welche Softwareteile in welcher Produktvariante aktiv sind?
- Wie erreichen Sie Produkt-Release-Entscheidungen auf solider Basis?
- Wie erzielen Sie kurze Kommunikationswege und nachvollziehbare Entscheidungen?
Wenn Sie diese Fragen beschäftigen, dann sind Sie bei diesem TIM-Expertentag, am 15. Februar 2017 um 14:00 Uhr in der Wirtschaftskammer OÖ richtig.
Experten der Johannes Kepler Universität (JKU) und des Software Competence Center Hagenberg (SCCH) stellen Lösungsansätze vor und berichten aus der Forschung und Anwendung.
Anmeldung bzw. nähere Auskünfte zur kostenpflichtigen Veranstaltung (EUR 39,00/Person) erteilt Frau Theresa Reisinger, TIM – WKO Oberösterreich, T 05/90909-3548, F -3549, E email@example.com. Zusätzliche Informationen stehen im Internet unter http://www.tim.at/32_DEU_HTML.php zum Download bereit.
Exciting news. My proposal “C4S – Coordination-centric Change and Consistency Support” with Alexander Egyed (Co-PI) has been accepted in the FWF (Austrian Science Fund) Matching Funds program.
I will carry out this project at JKU, specifically the Institute for Software Systems Engineering (ISSE), which I will join as Post-Doc and PI beginning of September. I’m very excited to work with the people at ISSE, given also the outstanding ranking of JKU within in the top 16 institutions worldwide by Microsoft Research.
The research proposal addresses change impact analysis in development efforts of complex, safety-critical software (e.g., air traffic control systems). Such software typically exhibits a long lifecycle, involves various engineers (beyond pure software developers) across the entire development lifecycle and is subject to countless changes in the scope of maintenance and evolution activities. Under such conditions proper impact analysis needs to go beyond knowing which artifacts are affected (traditional traceability). Successfully implementing a change requires awareness which engineers to involve and why, how these engineers should be coordinated and communicate, and how these engineers should correctly propagate changes. Hence, what is an efficient and effective way to support engineers in change impact analysis and consistency maintenance? Pure top-down specified processes are insufficient to provide actionable guidance. This proposed work, therefore, investigates methods and techniques for bottom-up determining the underlying communication, coordination, and joint work relations among engineers, artifacts, and tasks. Monitoring such low-level events enables a holistic bottom-up activity view that constitutes the basis for extensive change management support: (i) Dependency Awareness and Consistency Support: provides sophisticated artifact dependencies and recommendations for maintaining artifact consistency beyond core development activities. (ii) Coordination Know-how Learning: generalizes and extracts insight into which coordination structures prevailed, how much collaboration occurred, and which expertise was involved, thus enabling to deduct how these properties affect the duration, quality outcome, and resource utilization of various development activities required for change implementation; and (iii) Coordination Guidance: provides actionable recommendations for a given change management instance based on previously learned best practices. Key research questions address the challenges of dealing with incomplete, incorrect, and uncertain information in detail.
As I recently got married, I’ve changed my family name to Mayr-Dorn. I will keep my email addresses (in addition to my new one: firstname.lastname@example.org), twitter handle, and this blog’s name for sake of continuity. Future papers, however, will carry my new family name. DBLP is able to combine papers from multiple names and I believe Google should be intelligent enough to do the same 😉
Over the last years, I have significantly reworked and enhanced the hADL model. It is time to bring all the information (example models, explanations, tutorials etc) together as a single point of reference for the revised hADL model. I’ve started collecting material on a dedicated page on this blog, and will continue to add material over the next weeks.
I’ll be giving a talk on “Models and Techniques for the Design and Self-Adaptation of Socio-Technical Systems” covering some research aspects I worked on during my Austrian Science Fund mobility fellowship.
Join in on Thursday Feb 21st at the Computer Science Department, University of Southern California, 03:30 PM – 05:00 PM
Or Friday Feb 22nd at the Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine, 11:00 am – 12:00 pm Location: ICS2 136
Abstract: The emergence of socio-technical systems characterized by significant user collaboration poses a new challenge for system adaptation. People are no longer just the “users” of a system but an integral part. Traditional self-adaptation mechanisms, however, consider only the software system and remain unaware of the ramifications arising from collaboration interdependencies. By neglecting collective user behavior, an adaptation mechanism is unfit to appropriately adapt to evolution of user activities, consider side-effects on collaborations during the adaptation process, or anticipate negative consequence upon reconfiguration completion. Inspired by existing architecture-centric system adaptation approaches, I will make the case for a human architecture model and linking it to the runtime software architecture. I will introduce a mapping mechanism and corresponding framework that enables a system adaptation manager to reason upon the effect of software-level changes on human interactions and vice versa.
Many call for a change in the reviewing process in Computer Science, make it more open for discussion, better feedback. So after receiving such useless reviews for my HICSS conference submission I decided to post them here in my blog:
Review A : which basically just provides the reject decision, but otherwise only a single “recommendation” to highlight contributions to academia and practice.
The authors present an innovative way of looking at collaboration patterns. Please proof read the manuscript for spelling errors. Consider further strengthening the paper by highlighting contributions to academia and practice.
Thank you for submitting your paper to our HICSS minitrack. There were many fine papers this year. Unfortunately, we are only able to accept the top six paper of which yours was not one of this year.
I would encourage you to consider us again next year
The topic is very interesting but there is no research method. The contribution of this paper is to present the idea of mapping architectural styles and collaboration patterns. This paper is appropriate for the conference proceedings but may be weak for publication in a journal. The authors should use a research design to validate their mapping idea.
To be complete, I also post the mini-track description from the HICSS website here:
Topics in Organizational Systems and Technology
This minitrack is especially set up to provide a forum for papers in the Organizational Systems and Technology track that do not “fit” exactly in a specific other minitrack. We are proud to often serve as an incubator for new ideas. Over the years we have actively solicited non-traditional, imaginative, and thought-provoking research in any IT area. We are particularly interested in papers that break new ground in new areas, or those that apply existing research to new industry groups or fields.
Considering this, can you really take such comments seriously?! Well, definitely not the invitation to submit again to this mini-track.