Current News (Home)
Introduction to ISSRE
Organizers & Program Committee
Agenda
Conference Registration
Hotel Registration
CFP: WOSA
Important Dates
Sponsors
Archive
|
|
 |
|
 |
WOSA2002
Second Workshop on Software Assessment
November 12, 2002
Annapolis MD, USA
|
| Time |
Presentation |
| 08:30-09:00 |
Welcome, Norman F. Schneidewind, Department
of Information Sciences, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, nschneid@nps.navy.mil |
| 09:00-10:00 |
A Framework for Experimental Error Propagation
Analysis of Software Architecture Specification, Hany Ammar, Lane Dept.
of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV, ammar@cemr.wvu.edu
Abstract: Early assessment of software quality attributes plays
a central role in developing better quality software. Error propagation
between software system components is a quantitative factor that reflects
on the reliability of a software product. We introduce a framework for
experimental error propagation analysis. This framework addresses the problem
of estimating error propagation at the architecture design phase. Our approach
is based on fault injection and post-simulation trace analysis. We compute
error propagation estimates through comparison of faulty-run traces with
a reference, fault-free, trace. We use this framework to experimentally
study error propagation in a medium-sized real-time system. We believe
that this framework can be further extended to allow for experimental analysis
of change propagation and requirements propagation |
| 10:00-10:30 |
Break
|
| 10:30-11:30 |
Uncertainty Analysis Of The Operational Profile
And Software Reliability, Katerina Goseva � Popstojanova and Sunil
Kamavaram, Lane Dept. of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, {katerina, sunil}@csee.wvu.edu
Abstract: Many architecture based software reliability models
were proposed in the past. Regardless of the accuracy of these models,
if a considerable uncertainty exists in the estimations of the operational
profile and components reliabilities then a significant uncertainty exists
in calculated system reliability. Therefore, uncertainty analysis
of the operational profile and software reliability are of essential importance.
In this talk we use two approaches for uncertainty analysis. In the first
approach we use the source entropy, a well-known concept from information
theory, to quantify the uncertainty in the operational profile and software
reliability models. We further estimate the execution rate and uncertainty
of each component using the theory of Markov chains and conditional entropy
respectively. The second approach is based on the method of moments.
It allows us to calculate system reliability moments based on (1) the knowledge
of software architecture reflected in the expression of the system reliability
as a function of component reliabilities and (2) estimates of moments of
components reliabilities obtained from components failure data. We apply
both approaches on the case study from European Space Agency that consists
of almost 10,000 lines of C code. The faulty versions of the program were
obtained by reinserting the faults discovered during integration testing
and operational usage. Component traces obtained during random testing
accordingly to the known operational profile were used to build software
architecture. Obviously, the uncertainty analysis provides richer set of
measures than the traditional point estimate of software reliability. These
measures can be used for guiding allocation of testing efforts, making
quantitative claims about the quality of software subjected to different
operational usages, and for reliability certification of component-based
systems. |
| 11:30-12:30 |
A Process Simulation Approach to Software Quality
Prediction and Management, Peter Lakey, Cognitive Concepts, Webster
Groves, MO, plakey01@earthlink.net
Abstract: This topic offers direction for research and
application work in the field of software process
modeling and simulation by describing a vision of the state of this
technology in our future. The discussion begins with an example of a recent
software process simulation model. The positive aspects of this example
are highlighted, including the manner in which it contributes to this evolving
field. Then the shortcomings of the simulation model are exposed, mainly
in terms of its limited practical value to a wide selection of software
projects. Following that introductory discussion, a vision of where the
software modeling and simulation field can be in the future is proposed.
This vision is illustrated with another example. Finally, a road map for
achieving this vision is outlined. The intention is to inspire workshop
attendees to form a collaborative effort. The purpose of the example
dynamic software process model is to assist software managers in planning
and estimating activities prior to a Development cycle, and to enable them
to better manage and control effort, schedule and quality throughout the
software development and test processes. The scope of the model is a complete
software development cycle for a single project. |
| 12:30-01:30 |
Lunch
|
| 01:30-02:30 |
DDP: A Practical Quantitative Early-Lifecycle
Risk Assessment and Risk Mitigation Planning Tool and Process, Martin
S. Feather , Steven L. Cornford, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
{Martin.S.Feather, Steven.L.Cornford}@jpl.nasa.gov; James D. Kiper, Miami
University, OH, kiperjd@muohio.edu
Abstract: DDP's purpose is to help early-lifecycle planning
of cost-effective risk reduction strategies. This is a crucial but challenging
time - decisions have considerable leverage on the development to follow,
but detailed knowledge (e.g., design knowledge) is sparse. DDP fills this
niche with a simple scalable quantitative model of "Objectives", "Risks"
(whose occurrence would adversely impact Objectives, including quantitative
estimates of how much they impact Objectives), and "Mitigations" (including
quantitative estimates of how much they reduce Risks). Data in a DDP model
is typically experts' estimates, gathered in interactive sessions. Custom
tool support for DDP facilitates on-the-fly data capture, performs cost
and risk calculations, and presents information back to users through a
variety of cogent visualizations. DDP has been applied to help plan the
development of individual technologies (both hardware and software) for
use on spacecraft, and, in ongoing work, in the planning for an entire
spacecraft. DDP relies heavily on expert estimates, formal validation
of a collection of which is problematic. Nevertheless, results of DDP applications
on the whole agree with experts' overall expectations, but in most applications
have also led to surprising insights that, upon reflection and further
study, the experts have agreed are both valid and valuable. |
| 02:30-03:30 |
Requirements Risk versus Reliability, Norman
F. Schneidewind, Department of Information Sciences, Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, CA, nschneid@nps.navy.mil
Abstract: While software design and code metrics have enjoyed
some success as predictors of software quality, the measurement field is
stuck at this level of achievement. If measurement is to advance to a higher
level, we must shift our attention to the front-end of the development
process, because it is during requirements analysis that errors are inserted
into the process. A requirements change may induce ambiguity and
uncertainty in the development process
that cause errors in implementing the changes. Subsequently, these
errors propagate through later phases of development and maintenance. These
errors may result in significant risks associated with implementing the
requirements. For example, reliability risk (i.e., risk of faults and failures
induced by changes in requirements) may be incurred by deficiencies in
the process (e.g., lack of precision in requirements). A potential
solution is to identify the attributes of requirements that cause the software
to be unreliable, and to quantify the relationship between requirements
risk and reliability. If these attributes can be identified, then policies
can be recommended to NASA for recognizing these risks and avoiding or
mitigating them during development. |
| 03:30-04:00 |
Break
|
| 04:00-05:00 |
Open Discussion and Concluding Remarks:
All attendees are invited and encouraged to discuss the presentations. |
© 2001,2002, issre2002.org all rights reserved,
Header photo #6 courtesy Annapolis & Anne Arundel
County Conference & Visitors Bureau.
|