Bruce Barnes, Terry Bollinger, Making Reuse Cost-Effective, IEEE Software, 1991  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....other hand, applications built using the toolkit also provide some functionality (mostly comfort functions, for example when editing) which otherwise would not have been implemented, but is part of the toolkit. Examples for similar situations can also be found in the literature. Authors like [Bar91] and [Tra94] state that there is some overhead involved in creating reusable parts. This overhead also affects the final applications and requires some additional effort when creating the components, but on the other hand is spread among all applications that re use the components. However, this ....

Bruce Barnes, Terry Bollinger, Making Reuse Cost-Effective, IEEE Software, 1991

....in its application complexity. To meet these demands, many organizations frequently introduce new software engineering technologies. However, often there is not enough time to train project teams extensively. Experts become a scarce resource. There are three ways to handle scarce resources [11]: automation, better planning, and reuse. The first way is the hardest: Only formalized tasks can be automated, which requires a deep understanding of the task. Unfortunately, in software development, no project is like another. Thus, formalizing tasks is hard. Moreover, many tasks are so complex ....

Bruce H. Barnes and Terry B. Bollinger. Making reuse cost effective. IEEE Software, 8(1):13--24, January 1991.

....can be of any granularity (not just code) In enumerating activities, the model concentrates on the reuse process rather than the reused product (e.g. code units) Reuse costs are included in the the reuse investment , which must be less than the benefits for the investment to be cost effective. Barnes and Bollinger [1991] restate this model as a profitability index, and arrive at three ways of increasing reuse gain: reuse more often, reuse more cheaply, or reduce the reuse investment. Pfleeger and Bollinger [1994] suggest using delta cost estimation with this model, which finds the deviations from the baseline ....

....their comparison and validation separately. 68 The only occasion when it may be useful on its own is as an estimate of the total cost of a system built with reuse, after the system has been built. It could be used in validation experiments in this way. 69 A third model to do the latter is Barnes and Bollinger [1991], a restatement of Bollinger and Pfleeger [1990] as a profitability index. 70 Except for the earlier version of the NATO model by Guerrieri, Lashway and Ruegsegger (cited by [Lim, 1996] 71 Or, sometimes, greater than or equal to. UW Aberystwyth Computer Science Page 41 of 48 Economic models ....

Bruce H. Barnes and Terry B. Bollinger. Making reuse cost-effective. IEEE Software, pages 13--24, January 1991.

....if components are indexed or otherwise structured poorly, it will be difficult to achieve good retrieval performance. The intuitive and widely held assumption is that up front investments in structuring a repository result in a proportional increase in the ease with which components can be reused [Barnes, Bollinger 1991; p. 16] While there is some truth to this assumption, retrieval methods have been created that can effectively use low cost repository structures. Information retrieval techniques have proliferated over three decades of research [Salton, McGill 1983] but the retrieval methods used for software ....

Barnes, B. H., Bollinger, T. B. "Making Reuse Cost-Effective," IEEE Software, 8(1), pp. 13-24.

....compiler options and known side effects. Sample Provides a usage scenario showing how the component applies to a specific problem. Test Contains information about the test history, procedures, results, and test cases. Usage Provides helpful information on how to integrate the component. [3]. Therefore, the program should address the benefits derived from . Suppliers, those who write and contribute quality reusable software and related information for use by others, and, Reusers, those who extract software from the RSL and incorporate the software in their products rather than ....

Barnes, B.H. and T.B. Bollinger, "Making Reuse Cost Effective," IEEE Software, Vol 8., No.1, Jan, 1991, pp. 13-24.

....l r knowledge and heuristics such as divide and conquer, and successive refinements. Researchers recognize that informa euse (i.e. in developers head) has always been taking place, whereby the base of reusable knowledge is acquired t individually by developers through experience (see e.g. [11]) To some extent, formal software reuse in general, and he building blocks approach in particular, recognize the earlier recall based phases of problem solving, and aim at formalizing them and providing computer support for them. Challenges to supporting reuse within development methodologies ....

....Further, different technical approaches to reuse have different investment and return on investment profiles (see e.g 42, 148] Economic models and software metrics are needed that quantify the costs and benefits of reuse. Only recently t o have researchers started to tackle this problem (see e.g.[7, 10, 11]) Such studies will not only help convince managemen f the advantages of software reuse in case there are any but will also guide the choice of the technical approaches, and improve the management of the introduction of reuse work methods within organizations [12, 15] Traditional software ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Bruce H. Barnes and Terry B. Bollinger, "Making Reuse Cost-Effective," IEEE Software, vol. 8(1), pp. 13-24, 1 January 1991.

....reuse, one needs to consider the long term benefits and associated costs which apply to every project using the component. They argue that a better economic estimate includes the number of times the organization reuses the component. Other groups present cost benefit models of reuse [16] and [2]. The NATO model consists of listing the major benefits and costs of reuse, then applying timevalue of money formulas to adjust for future values. The Barns and Bollinger model determines the cost benefit of reuse by subtracting investment costs of producing reusable software from the reduced ....

Barns, B.H. and T.B. Bollinger, "Making Reuse Cost Effective," IEEE Software, Vol 8., No.1, Jan, 1991, pp. 13-24.

....Reuse Jeffrey S. Poulin IBM Federal Systems Company MD 0220, Owego, NY 13827 Tel: 607) 751 6899 Email: poulinj vnet.ibm.com Fax: 607) 751 2800 Abstract Most current reuse measurement models focus on quantifying the level of software, e.g. code, reused on a given project [1] 2] [3]. One reason for the focus on code reuse metrics lies in the relative ease of quantifying the amount of code in a given product. A second, perhaps more critical, reason lies in the difficulty of completely understanding the issues behind reuse in other phases of the lifecycle, such as design [4] ....

B. Barnes and T. Bollinger, "Making Reuse Cost Effective," IEEE Software, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 13--24, January 1991.

....larger return on investment lies in support for problems that have not yet matured, but for which some isolated solutions have been explored. It has been suggested that The defining characteristic of good reuse is not the reuse of software per se, but the reuse of human problem solving [4][p. 13] To accelerate the process of turning isolated problem solving episodes into reusable assets, tools are needed that manage knowledge assets and support their refinement into reusable software artifacts. Not only must mature domains be supported with formal reusable artifacts and ....

B.H. Barnes, T.B. Bollinger, "Making Reuse CostEffective, " IEEE Software, 8(1), 1991, pp. 13-24.

....approach 60 of reusable code. Five objective reuse measures [4] have been applied to the code to estimate current impact of reuse and stimulate new reuse. While each measure has strengths and weaknesses (see Table 7 in the Discussion section) two derived from the consumer producer model [2] have been particularly useful: use of reusable library components (for producers) and reuse growth factor (for consumers) The latter, developed in this study and introduced in the Measurements section below, helped identify a new opportunity for reuse that was not obvious from other measures. ....

....Abstractions and Reuse Components Feedback Loop Reuse Figure 4. Feedback of Software Reuse Measurements into the Development Process Objective Reuse Measures A variety of software reuse models and measures have been proposed in the literature [7, 8, 10, 11] Based on a consumer producer model [2], Chen, Krisnamurthy and Vo [4] introduced the idea of code based objective, complete, and precise reuse measures. Objective measures start with fixing some chosen code granularity such as shipped source [12] compilation units [1] files, functions, lines of code, etc. Then a complete and precise ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

B. H. Barnes and T. B. Bollinger. Making Reuse CostEffective. IEEE Software, 8(1):13--24, January 1991.

....(1987) says, Nothing comes free, especially in the world of software. First, there is the cost of creating components Appendix E 33 itself and it simply takes more effort to build a component that is generalized and hence appropriate for reuse than one that is not designed with reuse in mind . Barnes and Bollinger (1991) say, Software reuse must be recognized as having the same cost and risk features as any financial investment . They have proposed the following two models in making reuse cost effective. 1. Reuse investment relation. To calculate the reuse benefit, you must first estimate the activity s cost ....

....was a net financial loss; if Q 1, the reuse investment provided good returns. The variables in this relation suggest three major strategies for increasing Q: 1. Increase the level of reuse. 2. Reduce the average cost of reuse. 3. Reduce the investment needed to achieve a given reuse benefit. Barnes and Bollinger (1991) study concentrates mainly on financial implications, but reuse benefits are potentially enormous in the long run such as quality, reliability, and productivity, even if there is a financial loss in the short run. Appendix E 34 The author feels that the above reuse investment relation is highly ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Barnes, B.H. and Bollinger T.B. (1991), " Making Reuse Cost - Effective", IEEE Software, January .

....for run time adaptation. Of course, for both the reference architecture and the components, there is a marginal cost of developing software that, in addition to meeting its primary specifications, is highly reusable. This cost must be weighed against the benefits of subsequent reuse applications [3]. In our experience, making the AIS reference architecture application independent contributed only a small part of its initial cost and may actually have simplified the tasks of designing and implementing it. Similarly, making components reusable through our three way decomposition of expertise ....

Barnes, B.H., Bollinger, T.B. Making reuse cost-effective. IEEE Software, January, 1991, pp. 13-24.

....defined in our model correspond to the organization boundaries defined in [PCH93] s model. The reuse numbers can vary based on how the organization boundaries are defined. But this is to be expected. Our division of applications and reusable repositories follows the Barnes and Bollinger[BB91] producer consumer model. As the paper points out, one likely major hurdle to software reuse is the lack of incentive strategies to encourage coordinated reuse. While most reuse measures concentrate only on the reuse percentages of the applications on the consumer side, such as the ones proposed ....

B.H. Barnes and T.B. Bollinger. Making Reuse Cost-Effective. IEEE Software, 8(1):13--24, 1991.

No context found.

B.H. Barnes and T.B. Bollinger, "Making Reuse Cost-Effective," IEEE Software, vol. 8. no. 1, January 1991, pp. 13-24.

No context found.

B. H. Barnes, T. B. Bollinger, "Making Reuse CostEffective, " IEEE Software, 8(1), 1991, pp. 13-24.

No context found.

B. H. Barnes and T. B. Bollinger. Making reuse cost-effective. IEEE Software, 8(1), 1991.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC