Informatik
Refine
Document Type
- Journal article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has full text
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4) (remove)
Institute
- Informatik (4)
Publisher
- Wiley (4) (remove)
Software is an integrated part of new features within the automotive sector, car manufacturers, the Hersteller Initiative Software (HIS) consortium defined metrics to determine software quality. Yet, problems with assigning metrics to quality attributes often occur in practice. The specified boundary values lead to discussions between contractors and clients as different standards and metric sets are used. This paper studies metrics used in the automotive sector and the quality attributes they address. The HIS, ISO/IEC 25010:2011, and ISO/IEC 26262:2018 are utilized to draw a big picture illustrating (i) which metrics and boundary values are reported in literature, (ii) how the metrics match the standards, (iii) which quality attributes are addressed, and (iv) how the metrics are supported by tools. Our findings from analyzing 38 papers include a catalog of 112 metrics of which 17 define boundary values and 48 are supported by tools. Most of the metrics are concerned with source code, are generic, and not specifically designed for automotive software development. We conclude that many metrics exist, but a clear definition of the metrics' context, notably regarding the construction of flexible and efficient measurement suites, is missing.
Hardly any software development process is used as prescribed by authors or standards. Regardless of company size or industry sector, a majority of project teams and companies use hybrid development methods (short: hybrid methods) that combine different development methods and practices. Even though such hybrid methods are highly individualized, a common understanding of how to systematically construct synergetic practices is missing. In this article, we make a first step towards a statistical construction procedure for hybrid methods. Grounded in 1467 data points from a large‐scale practitioner survey, we study the question: What are hybrid methods made of and how can they be systematically constructed? Our findings show that only eight methods and few practices build the core of modern software development. Using an 85% agreement level in the participants' selections, we provide examples illustrating how hybrid methods can be characterized by the practices they are made of. Furthermore, using this characterization, we develop an initial construction procedure, which allows for defining a method frame and enriching it incrementally to devise a hybrid method using ranked sets of practice.
The emergence of agile methods and practices has not only changed the development processes but might also have affected how companies conduct software process improvement (SPI). Through a set of complementary studies, we aim to understand how SPI has changed in times of agile software development. Specifically, we aim (a) to identify and characterize the set of publications that connect elements of agility to SPI, (b) to explore to which extent agile methods/practices have been used in the context of SPI, and (c) to understand whether the topics addressed in the literature are relevant and useful for industry professionals. To study these questions, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the literature identified in a previous mapping study, an interview study, and an analysis of the responses given by industry professionals to SPI related questions stemming from an independently conducted survey study. Regarding the first question, we identified 55 publications that focus on both SPI and agility of which 48 present and discuss how agile methods/practices are used to steer SPI initiatives. Regarding the second question, we found that the two most frequently mentioned agile methods in the context of SPI are Scrum and Extreme Programming (XP), while the most frequently mentioned agile practices are integrate often, test-first, daily meeting, pair programming, retrospective, on-site customer, and product backlog. Regarding the third question, we found that a majority of the interviewed and surveyed industry professionals see SPI as a continuous activity. They agree with the agile SPI literature that agile methods/practices play an important role in SPI activities but that the importance given to specific agile methods/practices does not always coincide with the frequency with which these methods/practices are mentioned in the literature.
Science-based analysis for climate action: how HSBC Bank uses the En-ROADS climate policy simulation
(2021)
In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2018) found that rapid decarbonization and net negative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by mid-century are required to "hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C," as stipulated by the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015, p. 2). Meeting these goals reduces physical climate-related risks from, for example, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, extreme weather, water shortages, declining crop yields, and other impacts. These impacts threaten our economy, security, health, and lives.
At the same time, policies to mitigate these harms by rapidly reducing GHG emissions can create transition risks for businesses - for example, stranded assets and loss of market value for fossil fuel producers and firms dependent on fossil energy (Carney, 2019). Rapid decarbonization requires an unprecedented energy transition (IEA, 2021a) driven by and affecting economic players including businesses, asset managers, and investors in all sectors and all countries (Kriegler et al., 2014).
However, GHG emissions are not falling rapidly enough to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement (Holz et al., 2018). The UNFCCC, 2021 found that the emissions reductions pledged by all nations as of early 2021 "fall far short of what is required, demonstrating the need for Parties to further strengthen their mitigation commitments under the Paris Agreement" (2021, p. 5). Businesses are faring no better. Despite high-profile calls to action from influential firms such as BlackRock (Fink, 2018, 2021), corporate action to meet climate goals has thus far fallen short (e.g. the Right, 2019 analysis of the German DAX 30 companies' emissions targets by NGO "right."). Instead of implementing climate strategies that might mitigate the risks, managers are often caught up in "firefighting" and capability traps that erode the resources needed for ambitious climate action (Sterman, 2015). Firms may also exaggerate environmental accomplishments, leading to greenwashing (Lyon and Maxwell, 2011); implement policies that are vague, rely on unproven offsets, or are not climate neutral (e.g. Sterman et al., 2018); or simply take no action at all (Delmas and Burbano, 2011; Sterman, 2015).
Adding to the confusion are difficulties evaluating the effectiveness of different climate policies. Misperceptions include wait-and-see approaches (Dutt and Gonzalez, 2012; Sterman, 2008), underestimating time delays and ignoring the unintended consequences of policies (Sterman, 2008), and beliefs in "silver bullet" solutions (Gilbert, 2009; Kriegler et al., 2013; Shackley and Dütschke, 2012). These beliefs arise in part because the climate–energy system is a high-dimensional dynamic system characterized by long time delays, multiple feedback loops, and nonlinearities (Sterman, 2011), while even simple systems are difficult for people to understand (Booth Sweeney and Sterman, 2000; Cronin et al., 2009; Kapmeier et al., 2017). Although senior executives might receive briefings on climate change, simply providing more information does not necessarily lead to more effective action (Pearce et al., 2015; Sterman, 2011).
Alternatively, interactive approaches to learning about climate change and policies to mitigate it can trigger climate action (Creutzig and Kapmeier, 2020). Decision-makers require tools and methods grounded in science that enable them to learn for themselves how a low-carbon economy can be achieved and how climate policies condition physical and transition risks. The system dynamics climate–energy simulation En-ROADS (Energy-Rapid Overview and Decision Support; Jones et al., 2019b), codeveloped by the climate think-tank Climate Interactive and the MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative, provides such a tool.
Here we show how En-ROADS helps HSBC Bank U.S.A., the American subsidiary of U.K.-based multinational financial services company HSBC Holdings plc, focus its global sustainability strategy on activities with higher impact and relevance, communicate and implement the strategy, understand transition risks, and better align the strategy with global climate goals. We show how the versatility and interactivity of En-ROADS increases its reach throughout the organization. Finally, we discuss challenges and lessons learned that may be helpful to other organizations.