The Software Engineering Academy Joins Industry Results of

The Software Engineering Academy Joins Industry: Results of the 1 st International Survey and a Future Portrait Frontiers in Education Conference Boston, MA November 9, 2002

Professor Kenneth L. Modesitt Department of Computer Science Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) Fort Wayne, IN 46805 USA modesitk@ipfw. edu (260) 481 -6237

Assumptions: Make explicit per Dave Parnas (ICSE 2001) Software is pervasive worldwide and the slope is increasing, including for person-rated systems and in large exposure arenas, e. g. financial, entertainment, transportation n Most software is currently developed by people who do not know what they are doing. Pressman estimates: 2 -3 million Englishspeaking people world wide doing software development. How many trained in SE? n

Assumptions: Make explicit per Dave Parnas (cont. ) Most of these individuals are professional and ethical, and consequently concerned/bothered by that fact (and so are many employers!) n It is increasingly likely that more software will fail in really major ways n Corporations do not want to see that happen (can get sued, go out of business, could not bid on future contracts, etc. ). I would also hope that some of them are ethical! n

Ergo. . . n One solution to provide better and more convenient access to SE expertise – for SE practitioners – from SE academics – via distance learning and F 2 F Better than increasing H 1 -B visas to U. S. A. (hardly a local issue) n Better than having incompetent people build SW systems n

This requires. . . n n State-of-the-art knowledge about SE expertise sources and practitioners HELP from all academic SE locations, especially outside U. S. A. !!! – Fill out SE survey and return – consider possible participation in International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC -- “I see, you see”) n n www. ipfw. edu/sesurvey/ Both under “New initiatives and degree proposals”

How could it be done?

How? Apply SW life cycle principles, using spiral methods n n Determine initial desire of stakeholders: ISEUC universities and industry Determine feasibility/constraints Pilot the collaborative arrangement, using – requirements engineering, design, implementation, test, deliver – pervasive QA and management – evaluation/lessons learned Cycle above steps for next spiral

International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC) Mission Statement n Background n Essential Components: Lessons Learned n Broad Objectives n Specific Schedule and Goals n Proposed Curriculum n

International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC): cont Benefits n Personal Visits – Details n Administration n Characteristics n Next Steps n Summary n

ISEUC (“I see, You see”) We must become the change we want to see. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Mission Statement of ISEUC: www. iseuc. org n n Lifelong learning on the part of people performing software development is required -- ISEUC provides easy access to them for such learning, via a combination of distributed learning (DL) and face-to-face. Software Engineering educators should expand the scope of their courses beyond their campuses to reach these developers -- ISEUC provides the infrastructure to do this.

ISEUC “One-liner” To provide academic software engineering expertise globally to those with the need to know now, from those in the know.

Background: Pre-cursor is Annual Survey of International SE Programs n n n Funded in August, 1999 by ACM and IEEE-Computer Society Current status on: http: //cs 1. ipfw. edu/swsurvey/ Results to date: 6796 graduates; 7922 students; 11 countries; 118 programs; 480 full-time faculty Estimate that the number of respondents to date is about 40 -50% of actual total -- get more here -- fill out survey! Supply is dramatically less than world-wide demand, according to most sources: OPPORTUNITY!

SE Survey Current Results: Numbers, Graphs 118 SE programs offered by 75 respondents n Degrees, by level n Academic departments that house the degree n Countries that have responded to date n SE “definitions” n

Additional survey questions considered for version 2 n n n n Content of curricula, e. g. , formal methods, discrete math, etc. , by level Participation with SEEK and SWEBo. K Availability via distance learning Female/male enrollments Interaction with industry Assistantships/fellowships Interest in inter-institutional collaboration

Lessons Learned from SE Survey n n Be cognizant of funding source viability Build in buffers for project plan Contacts must include e-mail addresses Build on shoulders of each others, not toes! n n Continue spiral model for development Be more global and not so “USA-centric” Backup! Team is essential

ISEUC: Background n n n Initial SE survey results published and included overview of possible future Proposal sent to survey responders Several (>35) world-wide indicated interest Author arranged visits with virtually all of the positive responders, during sabbatical and Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment with U. S. TACOM Lab (Next Generation Software Department) during 20002001 Some of the following material was used during the visits

What Could Be? A Modest Proposal International Software Engineering University Consortium -- ISEUC

Why are we meeting now? Incentive to visit in person Quality of Relationships Quality of Results Reinforcing Engine of Success Quality of Thinking Quality of Actions As the quality of relationships rises, the quality of thinking improves, leading to an increase in the quality of actions and results. Achieving high quality results has a positive effect on the quality of relationships, creating a reinforcing engine of success.

Where are we now? ISEUC Visits: by date n U. S. A. MM/DD/YY – National Technological University 10/30/00 – Texas Tech University 11/01/00 – Cal State University, Northridge 11/02/00 – Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo 11/02/00 – Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey* 11/03/00 – George Mason University 11/27/00

Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) n U. S. A. – Stevens Institute of Technology 11/30/00 – Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 12/01/00 – Carnegie Mellon University 01/10/01 – Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 01/16/01 – Butler University 01/17/01 – Indiana Univ. Purdue Univ. Indianapolis 01/17/01 – Purdue University 01/17/01

Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) n U. S. A. – Mercer University 01/31/01 – Milwaukee School of Engineering 02/08/01 – Oregon Master of Software Engineering 04/10/01 – California State Univ. -Sacramento 04/11/01 – University of Washington-Bothell 04/12/01 – Seattle University 04/12/01

Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) n UNITED KINGDOM/EUROPE – University of Wales, Aberystwyth – University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology – University of Durham – Imperial College, London – University of Birmingham – University of Lancaster – University of Manchester – Slovak Institute of Technology 03/14/01 03/15/01 03/16/01 TBD TBD

Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) n CANADA – Mc. Master University TBD – University of Calgary TBD – University of Western Ontario 05/09/01 – University of Ottawa 05/10/01 – Concordia University TBD – Royal Military School TBD

Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) n AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND – University of Melbourne – Swinburne University – La. Trobe University – Monash University – Murdoch University – University of Western Australia – Edith Cowan University – University of Queensland – Queensland University of Technology – Australian National University – University of Auckland 05/25/01 05/28/01 05/29/01 06/01/01 06/05/01 TBD

Essential Components for ISEUC via Lessons Learned, to Date n Excellent SE faculty and Program – Normally means industry experienced faculty Industrial Advisory Board n Infrastructure (most likely gap) n – Development Incentive: Release time, $$ – Development Support: Staff, Tools, Processes, Course resources, e. g, simulation for Proj. Mgt – Operations Incentive: $$/DL student

Broad Objectives n n Increase the number of SE professionals Enhance the skills of existing professionals from many disciplines Facilitate cross-discipline training and awareness for management Increase accessibility by hybrid model of DL courses from “primary universities” coupled with traditional F 2 F aid from “associate universities” that are physically closer to the student

Where could we be? Proposal: Preliminary Goals n August/September, 2002 – 10 -12 SE courses via Asynchronous DL – 5 -6 Universities, from 1 -3 countries – 50 -60 additional students, with 50% from industry n August-December, 2003 – 60 SE courses via Asynchronous DL – 30 Universities, from 10 countries – 500 additional students, with >50% from industry

Current Goals for August/September, 2002 n ISEUC Catalog – 14 Universities, from 3 countries – pool of 171 English and 18 French Courses from which to draw n n n Calendar: 12 courses via Asynchronous DL Trying to interest additional students: industry Trying to obtain funding for infrastructure support (from U. S. A: FIPSE “Learning Anywhere Anytime Partnership -- LAAP” Grant, IEEE-CS and other sources).

Proposed Curriculum (tie to SEEK at undergraduate? ) n Core courses – Methodology – Requirements – Design – Construction – Project Management – Evolution – Capstone Projects

Proposed Curriculum: cont n Recurring Courses – Ethics and Professionalism – Processes – Quality – Modeling – Metrics – Tools and Environments – Documentation

Benefits: University Participants For a “primary” university, additional students would enroll in existing SE DL courses n New SE DL courses may be developed for additional university revenue from a world-wide population of students n Participation as an “associate” university would also increase revenues n

Benefits: Students n n New state-of-the-art courses from universities world -wide Accessibility: time and place Synchronous mode, when required, is available from mediator at associate university Single point of contact – – – Administration Enrollment at any ISEUC member university Payment for credit courses, with reimbursement from industry employer

Benefits: Industry Additional qualified SE professionals n Added breadth and depth of professional and management n Better accessibility to academic centers of SE expertise n

Personal Visits: Sites n Made to 35 universities, institutes, and colleges around the world from October 30, 2000 through June 5, 2001 – Australia – Canada – United Kingdom – United States Total 9 2 4 20 35

Personal Visits: Participants n n n Faculty, department chairs, deans, heads of schools, provosts, DL staff, development staff, industry [NOT all at the same meeting or the same time!] Length varied from 30 minutes to six hours, with median of two to three hours Locations included conference rooms, department chair offices, and industry sites

Personal Visits: Joint dialogue based on material at www. iseuc. org n n n n n Why are we here? (Context) Where are we now? (Current status) Where could we be? (Proposal) Why would we want to do this: Faculty, Administration, Industry? How could it be done? What are the next steps? So what? Supporting material Sample scenarios

Personal Visits n Topics selected depended on university – wide variance in DL expertise n Others more interested in consortium – used analogy of “Star Alliance” – a group of international airline carriers that the author frequently used during the travels

Why a Consortium? What are the discriminators for a prospective student “customer” ? n Service n Features n Quality n Cost

Why a Consortium for customer? An existing one: Star Alliance n Service – Made all reservations (United and Ansett) via single POC – Did electronic visa at the same time – Prompt e-mail confirmation and ticket mailings – Special bus at Air New Zealand LAX terminal #2 to #7 (United) n Features – Interface very smooth among members, e. g. , United and Ansett or LH and United ( took emergency flight in Feb. from Frankfurt) – Interface smooth with nonmembers: Interline baggage with NWA – Multi-cultural

Why a Consortium for customer? An existing one: Star Alliance (2) n Quality – On-time arrival of flights AND baggage – Best-in-class among individual members – Synergy demonstrated when working together – Each member keeps its own n Cost – Healthy competition among members, e. g. , Air New Zealand United – Customer is the beneficiary in obtaining best value

Why a Consortium for a customer? A prospective one: ISEUC n Quality n Features n Service n Cost – top-flight individual members in SE – convenient access via Internet, multi-cultural – one-stop “shopping”, single POC, F 2 F mediator – far less than transporting employees, less opportunity cost lost

Personal Visits: Lessons Learned n Lessons learned posted on www. iseuc. org, based on responses to following queries: – Your current status of SE and DL – Your unique characteristics in SE and DL – Your taxonomy of SE – Your next steps for involvement with ISEUC

Operation of ISEUC requires following services n n n Administration Marketing Coordination Single Point Of Contact (POC) for students taking courses from several universities Soliciting recommendations from ISEUC university member advisory board Soliciting recommendations from ISEUC industry member advisory board

Characteristics of ISEUC: sound familiar? ? ? n n Fulfills a real client need in timely and cost-effective fashion High quality Built from tested components Built-in redundancy n n n High reliability Easy to learn Easy to use Affordable Robust Exceeds expectations of clients!

Becoming an ISEUC member: Next steps n n n Review the information at www. iseuc. org Contact the author for a draft agreement between ISEUC and your university Add your SE DL courses to ISEUC catalog, place them into relevant taxonomy Add them to ISEUC calendar for 2003 -04 – Provide URLs former versions – Provide e-mail contact for instructor Add tuition/fees to ISEUC list Determine arrangements for ISEUC to be Point of Contact for students enrolled via ISEUC marketing: transcripts, “guest, ” fees, etc.

Summary n n n ISEUC now under development, currently involving 35 institutions of higher learning from 20 states and four countries Started from results of ACM and IEEE-CS funded survey of international academic SE programs (still underway) Will provide comprehensive integrated and highquality asynchronous learning opportunities to international community of current and prospective pools of SE practitioners, as well as current and future students in SE curricula

Educated, Caring, Persistent, Ethical and Collaborative Teams of PEOPLE are the key to better tools, processes and methods for Software Engineering