Informatics 217 Spring 2007

Informatics 217: Software Processes

Spring Quarter 2007

Instructor:	Susan Elliott Sim
Email:	To ensure a response to your email, please include "Inf217" in the subject line and send your email from a UCI account.
Office hours:	In ICS3 5226 Drop In Hours: TBA Other times by Appointment
Lectures:	Monday 2:00-4:50pm, ICS3 1423
Web site:	http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ses/teaching/inf217/
EEE Noteboard:	http://eee.uci.edu/toolbox/noteboard/index.php?board=5140

Description - Schedule - Grading - Materials - Policies

Description

Catalog description:
Explores vehicles for modeling, coding, and analyzing software processes. Considers integration of software process programming approaches with traditional management issues. Explores the use of software process execution as a vehicle for effective integration of tools into environments.

Description of this installment of 217:
We will be investigating the tension between formal, controlled software processes and the processes enacted by people to develop software. We will be reading classic papers and texts during the early part of the course, but the majority of the time will be devoted to a research project to be undertaken by the students in groups of two.

Textbooks

The majority of the readings in the course will be papers available through the IEEE or ACM Digital Libraries. In addition to these works, we will be reading two books.

Beck, Kent, Extreme Programming Explained: Addison-Wesley, 1999.
Humphrey, W. S., A Discipline for Software Engineering: Addison-Wesley, 1995.

Schedule

Week	Date	Topic
1	April 2	Introduction Alfonso Fuggetta, "Software Process: A Roadmap," in The Future of Software Engineering, Anthony Finkelstein, Ed.: ACM, pp. 27-34, 2000. Frederick P. Brooks. "No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accident in Software Engineering." IEEE Computer, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 10-19, April 1987.
2	April 9	Modeling vs. Enactment Resolution: Be it resolved that process programming cannot succeed because it is not possible to build a complete model. Required Readings Leon J. Osterweil, "Software Processes are Software Too," presented at Ninth International Conference on Software Engineering, Monterey, CA, pp. 2-13, 30 March-2 April 1997. Meir M. Lehman and Juan F. Ramil, "Software Evolution: Background, Theory, Practice," Information Processing Letters, vol. 88, no. 1-2, pp. 33-44, October, 2003. Optional Readings Leon J. Osterweil, "Software Processes are Software Too: Revisited; An Invited Talk on the Most Influential Paper of ICSE 9," presented at Nineteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, MA, pp. 540-548, 17-23 May 1997. M. M. Lehman, "Process Modelling- Where Next," presented at Nineteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, MA, pp. 549-552, 17-23 May 1997. Debaters Government: Joel and Sameer Opposition: Susan
3	April 16	Culture vs. Tools Resolution: Be it resolved that the coordination component of workflow is incompatible with social models used in the workplace. Required Readings Gary J. Nutt, "The Evolution Towards Flexible Workflow Systems," Distributed Systems Engineering, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 276-294, December, 1996. Yrjö Engeström, "When is a Tool? Multiple Meanings of Artifacts in Human Activity," in Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity Theory, Painettu Kirjapaino, Oma Kyssä, and Jyväskylässä, Eds.: Orienta-Konsultit Oy, pp. 171-195, 1990. Optional Readings Gregory Alan Bolcer and Richard N. Taylor, "Advanced Workflow Management Technologies," Software Process - Improvement and Practice, vol. 4, pp. 125-171, 1999. Debaters Government: Stephen and Gerald Opposition: Sulagna and Anupa Project Proposals due
4	April 23	Control vs. Agility Resolution: Be it resolved that software process must be controlled quantitatively to ensure that projects are completed predictably and reliably. Required Readings Beck, Kent, Extreme Programming Explained: Addison-Wesley, 1999. Humphrey, W. S., A Discipline for Software Engineering: Addison-Wesley, 1995. Debaters Government: Rosalva and Vivian Opposition: Bryan and Yin-Yee
5	April 30	Empiricism vs. Invention Resolution: Be it resolved that field studies of software engineers do not produce results that researchers can use when creating next generation tools and methods. Required Readings Bill Curtis, Herb Krasner, and Neil Iscoe, "A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems," Communications of the ACM, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1268-1287, November, 1988. Dewayne E. Perry, Nancy A. Staudenmeyer, and Jr. Votta. Lawrence G., "Understanding and Improving Time Usage in Software Development," in Software Process, Trends in Software, Alfonso Fuggetta and Alexander Wolf, Eds.: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 111-135, 1996. Debaters Government: Susan Opposition: Deepika and Erik
6	May 7	Projects and Discussion
7	May 14	Projects and Discussion
8	May 21	Susan Away- No class
9	May 28	Memorial Day Holiday- No class
10	June 4	Projects and Discussion
11	June 13	Project Presentations 10:30am-12:30pm Projects due

Grading and Evaluations

Grading.
Term Project 60%
Project Proposal 10%
Interim Presentation 10%
Debate 10%
Participation 10%

Term Project.
For the term project for this course will consist of original research on a topic software process. The project will be undertaken in teams of two. A report describing the research is due at the last meeting of the course. There is a list of suggested topics available and it includes a field study of industrial software process, literature review, and the Personal Software Process. Substantial latitude will be allowed in choosing the topic, but all topics must be related software process and approved in advance by the instructor (see Project Proposal).
Due Wednesday, June 13, 2007.

Project Proposal.
The project proposal will be a preliminary description of the term project to be undertaken. It should describe the research question to be investigated, the field site (if applicable), and the research methods to be used in the study. Since this is a preliminary description, changes are permitted as the research progresses. However, radical changes, e.g. selecting a new field site, are discouraged after this time.
Due Monday, April 16, 2007. (by email)

Interim Presentation.
Each project team will give a presentation during the second half of the quarter on their research in progress. The presentation should be 15-20 minutes in length. It should give an overview of the topic, discuss open problems, and solicit feedback from peers.

Debate.
During the early portion of the course, we will be pairs of papers that present opposing views of software process. Discussion of these papers will begin with a debate. The debate will consist of four students, two in favor and two against a resolution, using a parliamentary debate format.

Participation.
Participation in the course will be evaluated in two ways. 1) Participation during class time. This includes attendance, active listening, and contributing to the discussion. 2) Students are required to make one post each week on the course Noteboard. This post must be made before noon of the day of class. During the weeks when there will be a debate, students not involved in the debate are expected to post their position The position must be substantiated by an argument. During the weeks when we will be discussing research projects, the post should be related to the project-- a progress report, a question or problem, a refinement of a previous idea or method, etc.

Policies

Cheating. The UCI academic honesty policy applies. Consequences of cheating in this class: A letter in your UCI file, and the course grade is lowered, possibly to F. Material that is copied from books or Web pages needs to be quoted and the source must be given.

Disabilities. If you need an accommodation because of a disability, please contact the instructor and the Disability Services Center as soon as possible.

(C) University of California, 2005.