International Software Engineering
University Consortium (ISEUC): A
Glimpse into the Future of University
and Industry Collaboration
Conference on Software Engineering
Education & Training
Cincinnati, OH
February 25, 2002
Professor Kenneth L. Modesitt
Department of Computer Science
Indiana University-Purdue
University Fort Wayne (IPFW)
Fort Wayne, IN 46825 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
• 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?
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!)
• It is increasingly likely that more software will
fail in really major ways
• 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!
Ergo...
• One solution to provide better and more
convenient access to SE expertise
– for SE practitioners
– from SE academics
– via distance learning and F2F
• Better than increasing H1-B visas to U.S.A.
(hardly a local issue)
• Better than having incompetent people build
SW systems
This requires...
• 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”)
• www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS
– New initiatives and degree proposals for both
How could it be done?
How? Apply SW life cycle
principles, using spiral methods
• 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
Background
Essential Components: Lessons Learned
Broad Objectives
Specific Schedule and Goals
Proposed Curriculum
International Software
Engineering University
Consortium (ISEUC): cont
•
•
•
•
•
•
Benefits
Personal Visits – Details
Administration
Characteristics
Next Steps
Summary
ISEUC (“I see, You see”)
We must become the
change we want to see.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Mission Statement of ISEUC:
www.iseuc.org
• 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
• Funded in August, 1999 by ACM and IEEE-Computer Society
• Current status on:
http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/Survey_ISEAP_2001/Sur
vey_ISEAP.html
• Results to date: 6796 graduates; 7922 students; 11 countries;
116 programs; 480 full-time faculty
• Estimate that the number of respondents to date is about 4050% 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
• 116 SE programs offered by 75 respondents
• Degrees, by level
• Academic departments that house the
degree
• Countries that have responded to date
• SE “definitions”
Degree Level: International Software Engineering Survey:
February 13, 2002 (N=116)
Other
5%
Doctoral
11%
Bachelors
38%
Masters
46%
Academic Department Where SE is Located:
International SE Survey: February 13, 2002
(N=116)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CS/CIS
CS and SE
ECE
SE
CS/EE
Other
Countries Responding to Date: International
SE Survey: February 13, 2002 (N=75)
7
7
Australia
1
Canada
1
Ecuador
1
Germany
1
Ireland
1
New Zealand
1
Slovakia
Spain
2
Sweden
United Kingdom
45
USA
7
Definitions of SE: International SE Survey:
February 6, 2002 (N=52)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
D1:Texas PE
D2:CRA
D3:IEEE
S1
D4:NATO
D5:Parnas
Own
Additional survey questions
considered for version 2
• Content of curricula, e.g., formal methods,
discrete math, etc., by level
• Availability via distance learning
• Female/male enrollments
• Interaction with industry
• Assistantships/fellowships
• Interest in inter-institutional collaboration
• Others?
Lessons Learned from SE Survey
• 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!
• Continue spiral model
for development
• Be more global and
not so “USA-centric”
• Backup!
• Team is essential
ISEUC: Background
• 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 during 2000-2001.
• 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
• 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
Rochester Institute of Technology
11/28/00
Monmouth University
11/29/00
*Postponed as Dr. Luqi was late arriving back in the country
Where are we now?
ISEUC Visits (cont)
• 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)
• U.S.A.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Mercer University
01/31/01
Milwaukee School of Engineering
02/08/01
Oregon Master of Software Engineering04/10/01
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)
• 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
03/15/01
03/16/01
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Where are we now?
ISEUC Visits (cont)
• CANADA
–
–
–
–
–
–
McMaster University
University of Calgary
University of Western Ontario
University of Ottawa
Concordia University
Royal Military School
TBD
TBD
05/09/01
05/10/01
TBD
TBd
Where are we now?
ISEUC Visits (cont)
• AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND
– University of Melbourne
– Swinburne University
– LaTrobe 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
05/28/01
05/29/01
06/01/01
06/01/01
06/01/01
06/05/01
06/05/01
TBD
TBD
Essential Components for ISEUC
via Lessons Learned, to Date
• Excellent SE faculty and Program
– Normally means industry experienced faculty
• Industrial Advisory Board
• Infrastructure (most likely gap)
– Development Incentive: Release time, $$
– Development Support: Staff, Tools, Processes,
Course resources, e.g, simulation for Proj.Mgt
– Operations Incentive: $$/DL student
– Operations Support: Staff, Tools, Logistics
Broad Objectives
• 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 F2F aid from “associate universities”
that are physically closer to the student
Where could we be?
Proposal: Preliminary Goals
• 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
• 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
• ISEUC Catalog
– 14 Universities, from 3 countries
– pool of 171 English and 18 French Courses from
which to draw
• Calendar: 12 courses via Asynchronous DL
• Trying to interest additional students: industry
• Trying to obtain funding for infrastructure
support (from U.S.A, trying FIPSE “Learning
Anywhere Anytime Partnership -- LAAP” Grant,
and other sources).
Proposed Curriculum
• Core courses
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Methodology
Requirements
Design
Construction
Project Management
Evolution
Capstone Projects
Proposed Curriculum:cont
• Recurring Courses
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ethics and Professionalism
Processes
Quality
Modeling
Metrics
Tools and Environments
Documentation
Benefits:
Consortium Participants
• For a “primary” university, additional
students would enroll in existing SE DL
courses
• New SE DL courses may be developed for
additional university revenue from a worldwide population of students
• Participation as an “associate” university
would also increase revenues
Benefits:
Students
• 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
• Added breadth and depth of professional
and management
• Better accessibility to academic centers of
SE expertise
Personal Visits: Sites
• Made to 35 universities, institutes, and
colleges around the world from October 30,
2000 through June 5, 2001
–
–
–
–
Australia
Canada
United Kingdom
United Stated
Total
9
2
4
20
35
Personal Visits: Participants
• 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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
• Topics selected depended on university
– wide variance in DL expertise
• 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” ?
• Service
• Features
• Quality
• Cost
Why a Consortium for customer?
An existing one: Star Alliance
• 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)
• 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
non-members: Interline
baggage with NWA
– Multi-cultural
Why a Consortium for customer?
An existing one: Star Alliance (2)
• Quality
– On-time arrival of
flights AND baggage
– Best-in-class among
individual members
– Synergy demonstrated
when working together
– Each member keeps its
own identity
• Cost
– Healthy competition
among members, e.g.,
Air New Zealand and
United
– Customer is the
beneficiary in
obtaining best value
Why a Consortium for a customer?
A prospective one: ISEUC
• Quality
– top-flight individual members in SE
• Features
– convenient access via Internet, multi-cultural
• Service
– one-stop “shopping”, single POC, F2F mediator
• Cost
– far less than transporting employees, less opportunity
cost lost
Personal Visits: Lessons Learned
• Lessons learned posted on www.iseuc.org,
based on responses to 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
•
•
•
•
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???
• Fulfills a real client
need in timely and
cost-effective fashion
• High quality
• Built from tested
components
• Built-in redundancy
•
•
•
•
•
•
High reliability
Easy to learn
Easy to use
Affordable
Robust
Exceeds expectations
of clients!
Becoming an ISEUC member:
Next steps
• 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 2002-03
– Provide URLs for 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
• 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