Advertisement

Component Oriented Platform Architecting for Software Intensive Product Families

Initial experiences with component frameworks and platforms from the consumer appliances and medical equipment domain
  • Henk Obbink
  • Rob van Ommering
  • Jan Gerben Wijnstra
  • Pierre America
Chapter
  • 115 Downloads
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 648)

Abstract

Platform-based product families are strategic business assets. A product platform represents a corporate asset from which streams of derivative products of a large variety can be derived and developed (so-called product families). Platform based development promises to be very effective in decreasing development cost and lead times while at the same time increasing product quality and market diversity. Currently industry is in the process of adapting this approach. In the course of time, electronic products have become software intensive. Unfortunately, software engineering processes and technologies that have been developed until now were mainly concerned with the creation of one product at a time. They do not address well the need for development and maintenance of a product platform and its derivative products. In this chapter, it will be shown how component oriented product family architectures provide a promising development paradigm. This paradigm solves the inherent dilemma of the need for careful engineering versus rapid realisation of a large variety of product instances. The approach is illustrated using examples from the medical and the consumer domain.

Keywords

Component platform architecture architecting embedded software product families domain engineering product lines product families component frameworks platforms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. America. Requirements modeling for families of complex systems. Submitted to the Third International Workshop on Software Architectures for Product Families, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, March 15–17, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Bass, P. Clements, S. Cohen, L. Northrop, and J. Withey. Product Line Practice Workshop Report. CMU/SEI-97-TR-003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Bass, P. Clements, and R. Kazman. Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Booch, I. Jacobson, and J. Rumbaugh. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Buschman, R. Meunier, H. Rohnert, P. Sommerlad, and M. Stal. A System of Patterns. Addison-Wesley, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Clements and L. Northrop. A Framework for Software Product Line Practice, version 2.0, 1999, SEI.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Coad and E. Yourdon. Object-Oriented Analysis. Yourdon Press/Prentice Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.M. Davis. 201 principles of software development. Mc Grawhill, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.-M. DeBaud and K. Schmid. A systematic approach to derive the scope of software product lines. Proceedings ICSE 21, page 34–43, Los Angeles, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Dolan, R. Weterings, and J.C. Wortmann. Stakeholders in Software-System Family Architectures. Proceedings of the Second International ESPRIT ARES Workshop, F.J. van der Linden (Ed.), Springer LNCS 1429, pages 172–187, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B.P. Douglass. Doing Hard Time: Developing Real-Time Systems with UML, Objects, Frameworks and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. J. Erens. The synthesis of variety. PhD thesis Eindhoven University of Technology, ISBN 90-386-0295-6, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Hofmeister, R. Nord, and D. Soni. Applied Software Architecture. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The draft Recommended Practice for Architectural Description, IEEE P1471/D51 of October 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Jacobson, M. Christerson, P. Jonsson, and G. Overgaard. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I. Jacobson, G. Booch, and J. Rumbaugh. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. Jacobson, M. Griss, and P. Jonsson. Software Reuse — Architecture, Process, and Organization for Business Success. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. Jandourek. A Model for Platform Development. Hewlett-Packard Journal, August 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Kaindl. Difficulties in the Transition from OO Analysis to Design. IEEE Software, pages 94–102, September/October 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E.-A. Karlsson (Ed.). Software Reuse: A Holistic Approach. Wiley, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Kruchten. The 4+1 View Model of Architecture. IEEE Software, pages 42–50, November 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W.C. Lim. Managing Software Reuse. Prentice Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F.J. van der Linden and J.K. Müller, Creating Architectures with Building Blocks. IEEE Software Vol. 12, No. 6, pages51–60, November 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Magee, N. Dulay, S. Eisenbach, and J. Kramer. Specifying Distributed Software Architectures. Proceedings ESEC′95, Wilhelm Schafer, Pere Botella (Eds.), Springer LNCS 989, pp. 137–153, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M.H. Meyer and A. Lehnerd. The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership. Free Press, ISBN 0-684-82580-5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J.K. Müller. Aspect Design with the Building Block Method. Proceedings of the First Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, February 1999.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J.H. Obbink. Product differentiation and Process Integration: the key to just-in-time in product development, LNCS, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J.H. Obbink. Analysis of Software Architectures in High- and Low-Volume Electronic Systems and industrial experience report, LNCS, 1997.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J.H. Obbink, P.C. Clements, and F.J. van der Linden. Introduction of Proceedings of the Second International ESPRIT ARES Workshop, F.J. van der Linden (Ed.), Springer LNCS 1429, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. van Ommering. Koala. A Component Model for Consumer Electronics Product Software. Proceedings of the Second International ESPRIT ARES Workshop, F.J. van der Linden (Ed.), Springer LNCS 1429, pages 76–86, 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Postma, R.L. Krikhaar, and M. Stroucken. A Method for Software Architecture Verification. Submitted to ICSE 2000, Limerick, June 2000.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    B. Pronk. Medical Product Line Architectures — 12 years of experience. Proceedings of the First Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, February 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    E. Rechtin and M. W. Maier. The Art of Systems Architecting. CRC Press, 1997, ISBN 0-8493-7836-2.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. Rozenblit and K. Buchenrieder. Codesign: Computer-aided software/Hardware Engineering. IEEE Press, 1995, ISBN 0-7803-1049-7.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    D. Soni, R. Nord, and C. Hofmeister. Software Architecture in Industrial Applications. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 196–210, Seattle, April 1995.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    C. Szyperski. Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    D.M. Weiss and C.T.R. Lai. Software Product-Line Engineering: A Family Based Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J.G. Wijnstra. Component Frameworks for a Medical Imaging Product Family. Submitted to the Third International Workshop on Software Architectures for Product Families, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, March 15–17, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk Obbink
    • 1
  • Rob van Ommering
    • 1
  • Jan Gerben Wijnstra
    • 1
  • Pierre America
    • 1
  1. 1.Philips Research Laboratories EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations