skip to main content
10.1145/2362536.2362560acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessplcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Supporting end users with business calculations in product configuration

Published: 02 September 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Business calculations like break-even, return on investment, or cost are essential in many domains to support decision making while configuring products. For instance, customers and sales people need to estimate and compare the business value of different product variants. Some product line approaches provide initial support, e.g., by defining quality attributes in relation to features. However, an approach that allows domain engineers to easily define business calculations together with variability models is still lacking. In product configuration, calculation results need to be instantly presented to end users after making configuration choices. Further, due to the often high number of calculations, the presentation of calculation results to end users can be challenging. These challenges cannot be addressed by integrating off-the-shelf applications performing the calculations with product line tools. We thus present an approach based on dedicated calculation models that are related to variability models. Our approach seamlessly integrates business calculations with product configuration and provides support for formatting calculations and calculation results. We use the DOPLER tool suite to deploy calculations together with variability models to end users in product configuration. We evaluate the expressiveness and practical relevance of the approach by investigating the development of business calculations for 15 product lines from the domain of industrial automation.

References

[1]
D. Batory. Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas. In Proc. of the 9th International Software Product Line Conference, pages 7--20, Springer, 2005.
[2]
D. Benavides, S. Segura, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later. Information Systems, 35(6): 615--636, 2010.
[3]
S. Biffl, A. Aurum, B. Boehm, H. Erdogmus, and P. Grünbacher. Value-Based Software Engineering. Springer, 2005.
[4]
B. Boehm. Software engineering economics. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1981.
[5]
B. Boehm, A. W. Brown, R. Madachy, and Y. Yang. A Software Product Line Life Cycle Cost Estimation Model. In Proc. of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, pages 156--164, IEEE CS, 2004.
[6]
P. Clements and L. Northrop. Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. SEI Series in Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 2001.
[7]
P. Clements, J. D. McGregor, and S. Cohen. The Structured Intuitive Model for Product Line Economics (SIMPLE). Technical Report CMU/SEI-2005-TR-003, 2005.
[8]
K. Czarnecki, T. Bednasch, P. Unger, and U. Eisenecker. Generative programming for embedded software: an industrial experience report. In Proc. of the International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, pages 156--172, ACM SIGPLAN/SIGSOFT, 2002.
[9]
K. Czarnecki, P. Grünbacher, R. Rabiser, K. Schmid, and A. Wasowski. Cool Features and Tough Decisions: A Comparison of Variability Modeling Approaches. In Proc. of the 6th International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems, pages 173--182, ACM, 2012.
[10]
D. Dhungana, P. Grünbacher, and R. Rabiser. The DOPLER Meta-Tool for Decision-Oriented Variability Modeling: A Multiple Case Study. Automated Software Engineering, 18(1): 77--114, 2011.
[11]
H. Gomaa. Designing Software Product Lines with UML. Addison-Wesley, 2005.
[12]
A. Hubaux, Q. Boucher, H. Hartmann, R. Michel, and P. Heymans. Evaluating a Textual Feature Modelling Language: Four Industrial Case Studies. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Software Language Engineering, pages 337--356, Springer, 2010.
[13]
K. C. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Nowak, and S. Peterson. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90TR-21, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 1990.
[14]
K. C. Kang, S. Kim, J. Lee, K. Kim, E. Shin, and M. Huh. FORM: a feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Annals of Software Engineering, 5(0): 143--168, 1998.
[15]
D. Lettner, D. Thaller, M. Vierhauser, R. Rabiser, P. Grünbacher, and W. Heider. Supporting Business Calculations in a Product Line Engineering Tool Suite. In Proc. of the Joint Workshop of the 3rd International Workshop on Model-driven Approaches in Software Product Line Engineering and the 3rd Workshop on Scalable Modeling Techniques for Software Product Lines, SPLC Workshops 2011, page 26.1--26.4, ACM, 2011.
[16]
M. Mernik, J. Heering, and A. M. Sloane. When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(4): 316--344, 2005.
[17]
A. J. Nolan and S. Abrahao. Dealing with Cost Estimation in Software Product Lines: Experiences and Future Directions. In Proc. of the 14th International Software Product Line Conference, pages 121--135, Springer, 2010.
[18]
K. Pohl, G. Böckle, and F. van der Linden. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, 2005.
[19]
R. Rabiser, P. Grünbacher, and D. Dhungana. Supporting Product Derivation by Adapting and Augmenting Variability Models. In Proc. of the 11th International Software Product Line Conference, pages 141--150, IEEE CS, 2007.
[20]
R. Rabiser, W. Heider, C. Elsner, M. Lehofer, P. Grünbacher, and C. Schwanninger. A Flexible Approach for Generating Product-Specific Documents in Product Lines. In Proc. of the 14th International Software Product Line Conference, pages 47--61, Springer, 2010.
[21]
F. Roos-Frantz, D. Benavides, A. Ruiz-Cortés, A. Heuer, and K. Lauenroth. Quality-aware analysis in product line engineering with the orthogonal variability model. Software Quality Journal, 2011 (in press;
[22]
K. Schmid, R. Rabiser, and P. Grünbacher. A Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches in Product Lines. In Proc. of the 5th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems, pages 119--126, ACM, 2011.
[23]
N. Siegmund, M. Rosenmueller, C. Kästner, P. Giarrusso, S. Apel, and S. Kolesnikov. Scalable Prediction of Non-functional Properties in Software Product Lines. In Proc. of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference, pages 160--169, IEEE CS, 2011.
[24]
M. Sinnema and S. Deelstra. Industrial Validation of COVAMOF. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(4): 584--600, 2008.
[25]
M. Vierhauser, P. Grünbacher, A. Egyed, R. Rabiser, and W. Heider. Flexible and Scalable Consistency Checking on Product Line Variability Models. In Proc. of the 25th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pages 63--72, ACM, 2010.
[26]
M. Vierhauser, G. Holl, R. Rabiser, P. Grünbacher, M. Lehofer, and U. Stürmer. A Deployment Infrastructure for Product Line Models and Tools. In Proc. of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference, pages 287--294, IEEE CS, 2011.
[27]
M. Voelter and E. Visser. Product Line Engineering using Domain-Specific Languages. In Proc. of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference, pages 70--79, IEEE CS, 2011.
[28]
J. White, B. Dougherty, and D. C. Schmidt. Selecting highly optimal architectural feature sets with Filtered Cartesian Flattening. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(8): 1268--1284, 2009.

Cited By

View all
  • (2020)A framework for automated multi-stage and multi-step product configuration of cyber-physical systemsSoftware and Systems Modeling10.1007/s10270-020-00803-8Online publication date: 13-Jun-2020
  • (2013)Constraint Checking in Distributed Product Configuration of Multi Product LinesProceedings of the 2013 20th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC) - Volume 0110.1109/APSEC.2013.54(347-354)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2013
  • (2012)Applying a consistency checking framework for heterogeneous models and artifacts in industrial product linesProceedings of the 15th international conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-642-33666-9_34(531-545)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2012

Index Terms

  1. Supporting end users with business calculations in product configuration

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    SPLC '12: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference - Volume 1
    September 2012
    310 pages
    ISBN:9781450310949
    DOI:10.1145/2362536
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    • Pure-Systems: Pure-Systems GmbH
    • Petrobras: Petróleo Brasileiro S/A
    • SEBRAE: Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro E Pequenas Empresas
    • FAPESB: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia
    • Hitachi
    • INES: National Institute of Science and Technology for Software Engineering
    • IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
    • Software Eng Inst: Software Engineering Institute
    • Biglever: BigLever Software, Inc.
    • CAPES: Brazilian Higher Education Funding Council

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 02 September 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. business calculations
    2. product configuration
    3. variability models

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    SPLC '12
    Sponsor:
    • Pure-Systems
    • Petrobras
    • SEBRAE
    • FAPESB
    • INES
    • IEEE
    • Software Eng Inst
    • Biglever
    • CAPES

    Acceptance Rates

    SPLC '12 Paper Acceptance Rate 22 of 66 submissions, 33%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 167 of 463 submissions, 36%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2020)A framework for automated multi-stage and multi-step product configuration of cyber-physical systemsSoftware and Systems Modeling10.1007/s10270-020-00803-8Online publication date: 13-Jun-2020
    • (2013)Constraint Checking in Distributed Product Configuration of Multi Product LinesProceedings of the 2013 20th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC) - Volume 0110.1109/APSEC.2013.54(347-354)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2013
    • (2012)Applying a consistency checking framework for heterogeneous models and artifacts in industrial product linesProceedings of the 15th international conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-642-33666-9_34(531-545)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2012

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media