CS 521

598 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
598
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CS 521

  1. 1. CS 521 Software Engineering Analysis
  2. 2. Course Topics <ul><li>Measurement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Basic Concepts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measurement in SE </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Empirical Strategies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Surveys </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Case Studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experiments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Empiricisms in SE </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Experiment Planning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hypothesis Formulation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Variable Selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subjects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instrumentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Threats to Validity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cyber-Physical Systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Definition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Testing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Security and Trustworthiness </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. cyber-physical system (CPS) <ul><li>A system featuring a tight combination of, and coordination between, the system’s computational and physical elements. </li></ul><ul><li>Today, a pre-cursor generation of cyber-physical systems can be found in areas as diverse as aerospace, automotive, chemical processes, civil infrastructure, energy, healthcare, manufacturing, transportation, entertainment, and consumer appliances. </li></ul><ul><li>This generation is often referred to as embedded systems . In embedded systems the emphasis tends to be more on the computational elements, and less on an intense link between the computational and physical elements. </li></ul><ul><li>Unlike more traditional embedded systems, a full-fledged CPS is typically designed as a network of interacting elements instead of as standalone devices. The expectation is that in the coming years ongoing advances in science and engineering will improve the link between computational and physical elements, dramatically increasing the adaptability, autonomy, efficiency, functionality, reliability, safety, and usability of cyber-physical systems. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Recent developments <ul><li>Infrastructure getting modernized </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ratio of advanced to regular meters 4.7% (FERC, 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Island of Malta becomes smart grid island </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enemalta and Water Services Corp. – to conduct remote monitoring 250,000 smart meters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>400,000 population </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$90M expense </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network to be completed by 2012 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Remote monitoring, meter reading, and real-time management of network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Real time monitoring and smart meters -> time of day pricing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Xcel Energy – Boulder as first Smart Grid City in the U.S. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First fully integrated smart Grid in U.S. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>PG&E rolling out several million smart meters in N.Cal </li></ul><ul><li>Alliander - Amsterdam green grid city project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Several 100 households </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Target completion 2012 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total $1B investment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated cost $410/household over 15 years for installation of smart grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experted emmissions reduction 40 %by 2025 </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. The Utility Industry is undergoing rapid change - Google Power Meter <ul><li>Source SmartGridNews.com </li></ul><ul><li>Google is announcing Google PowerMeter, which will ultimately become an open platform for home energy information. </li></ul><ul><li>PowerMeter is currently in internal beta testing. About four dozen Google employees have home energy monitors to record their power usage (as proxies for the smart meters of the future). A Home Energy gadget on their iGoogle home pages shows them how much energy they are using. The gadget tracks historical data and forecasts future trends (similar to the displays available for some of Google’s finance applications). </li></ul><ul><li>…… Giving Customer information so they can act and help with demand response </li></ul><ul><li>The PowerMeter Platform </li></ul><ul><li>Underneath the PowerMeter gadget is an open systems platform that Google equates to Google Maps, the highly successful geospatial system that has become the foundation for thousands of applications. </li></ul><ul><li>Although the company uses the Maps comparison, PowerMeter may actually have more in common with Google Android and Google Health. Android is a platform for building mobile phone applications. It deals not just with data, but also with hardware. In a similar fashion, Google PowerMeter will ultimately need to interface with smart meters, thermostats and other devices. </li></ul><ul><li>… . Intelligent software with real time information pushes consumption away from high peak load areas </li></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><ul><li>A smart grid delivers electricity from suppliers to consumers using digital technology to save energy, reduce cost and increase reliability. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Such a modernized electricity network is being promoted by many governments as a way of addressing energy independence or global warming issues. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For example, if smart grid technologies made the United States grid 5% more efficient, it would equate to eliminating the fuel and greenhouse gas emissions from 53 million cars. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>United States Congress to pass legislation that included doubling alternative energy production in the next three years and building a new electricity &quot;smart grid&quot;. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alternative fuel sources would require a smart and flexible grid </li></ul>Wikipedia – Smart Grid
  7. 7. Open protocol and standards is the way to go <ul><li>&quot;(F) OPEN PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS. – The Secretary shall require as a condition of receiving funding under this subsection that demonstration projects utilize open protocols and standards (including Internet-based protocols and standards) if available and appropriate.&quot; (P.30, Section 405 A-F). </li></ul><ul><li>… Government plays an important role </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><ul><li>Long Term - decades </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- What is the model of the Smart Grid? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bringing it alive? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Knows its status - sensors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Makes smart decisions – intelligent decision making (decentralized) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fixes/modifies/evolves itself like a living organism – Control </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Changes its topology </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>This is the queen of infrastructures </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Short and Medium </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is flexible – quick repair </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can take in new energy sources such as wind / solar / renewables? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can we connect to PHEVs? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do we have any smart grids today – YES! </li></ul></ul>So where are we headed with Smart Grid?
  9. 9. Organize Thought Leadership Forums on Smart Grid of Future <ul><li>Next Forum, June 18, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Current technical limitations of 100 year old electric grid infrastructure in the United States </li></ul><ul><li>Various visions of the Smart Grid from DOE, National Labs, how it relates to technologies available today </li></ul><ul><li>Technologies adopted by successful implementations of Smart Grid across the US and abroad </li></ul><ul><li>Open-systems wireless/comm interface software and standards based approach </li></ul><ul><li>Advanced wireless, RFID and RF-sensors technologies and their convergence with the grid </li></ul><ul><li>California Energy Commission, Defense Energy Support Center Electric Power Group EPRI Global Quality Corp. Hughes Network Systems ISGEC Group Ismb - istituto superiore mario boella LanTech, Inc. Motorola, Inc. </li></ul>San Diego Gas & Electric Sempra Energy/The Gas Company Southern California Edison Company Southern Contracting Company TechnoCom Corporation Universal Devices, Inc University of South Carolina Utility Consulting Group
  10. 10. Previous forum, March 18, 2009 <ul><li>Electric Power Group </li></ul><ul><li>Qualcomm Ventures </li></ul><ul><li>Capgemini </li></ul><ul><li>Los Angeles Dept Water & Power </li></ul><ul><li>BC Hydro </li></ul><ul><li>Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory </li></ul><ul><li>Sempra Energy/The Gas Company </li></ul><ul><li>NERC Cyber Security CIP Program </li></ul><ul><li>Siemens </li></ul><ul><li>Oracle Corporation </li></ul><ul><li>Next forum, November,2009 </li></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>Variable and uncertain sources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Solar </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Variable sinks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Appliances </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Spatial and Temporal sources </li></ul><ul><li>and sinks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PHEVs / hybrids </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Demand Response </li></ul><ul><li>Plug and Play </li></ul><ul><li>Open Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>… An intelligent network making decisions </li></ul>RESEARCH
  12. 12. Infrastructure upgrade – challenge but opportunity <ul><li>Electric grid set up about100 years ago </li></ul><ul><li>~157,000 miles of high voltage electric transmission lines </li></ul><ul><li>Since 1990, demand has increased 25 % </li></ul><ul><li>Construction of power plants has decreased 30 % </li></ul><ul><li>Recent history . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikiepedia -  ”The energy crisis was characterized by a combination of extremely high prices and  rolling blackouts . Price instability and spikes lasted from May 2000 to September 2001. Due to price controls, utility companies were paying more for electricity than they were allowed to charge customers, forcing the bankruptcy of  Pacific Gas and Electric  and the public bail out of  Southern California Edison . This led to a shortage in energy and therefore, blackouts.  Rolling blackouts  began in June 2000 and recurred several times in the following 12 months.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2003 rolling blackout (Cleveland isolation, 55M people affected) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>… Opportunity to support changing demands of the customer via a flexible infrastructure </li></ul>
  13. 13. Demand response <ul><li>Demand Response Definition (LBL) DR is a set of time-dependent activities that reduce or shift electricity use to improve electricity grid reliability, manage electricity costs, and encourage load shifting or shedding when the grid is near its capacity or electricity prices are high. </li></ul><ul><li>LBL Demand Response 2004 Test </li></ul><ul><li>FERC - 8 percent of energy consumers in US have demand response program </li></ul><ul><li>Potential demand response from all U.S. programs ~41,000 MW, or 5.8 % of peak demand. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is increase of 3,400 MW from the 2006 estimate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>largest demand response resource contributions from Mid-Atlantic, Midwestern and Southeastern </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ontario Smart Grid Forum - ..providing transparent electricity prices to consumers together with time-of-use rates can lead to consumption reductions that range from five to fifteen per cent. </li></ul>
  14. 14. A new grid over the next 25-50 years Data network : Power Network, Is there a parallel?
  15. 15. Challenges and research opportunities <ul><li>Lack of clear definition on what the Smart Grid will or should look like </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of clear articulation from leaders to citizens on the benefits and reason for investment </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of on interfaces between devices, networks, appliances, meters, infrastructure (need for open interfaces) </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of acceptance of problems – vendors’ systems sometimes talk even when standard interfaces are developed </li></ul><ul><li>Economic justification at the unit level (home, office, factory) is challenging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How does one pay for the investment? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who pays? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How does utility charge for it? Utilities are highly regulated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How does community discount it? Concern about certain vendors getting additional advantage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rate adjustments – incremental would be necessary </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All parties to not share the same vision of the Smart Grid </li></ul><ul><li>Evolution versus revolution – conflict in approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Are there appropriate incentives from government </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory challenges – utilities are regulated </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure not ready today to turn on the switch </li></ul><ul><li>In the Smart Grid of the Future, what becomes of utilities (only a pipe? Or have content – what is the meaning of content in the Smart Grid of the Future)? </li></ul>
  16. 16. Where does Wireless Technology Come in? <ul><li>Does not require large amounts of fixed infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>New generations of technology can easily replace older generations without having to remove cables </li></ul><ul><li>Next generation of appliances can be done easily </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure itself can be upgraded frequently (e.g. 1G -> 2G -> 3G -> 4G) </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits of wireless, variability in performance and resource requirement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Long range / short range </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low bandwidth / high bandwidth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delays in networks constantly reducing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Much lower investment to start getting benefits of Smart Grid </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>Edgeware - edge of the network generates </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sensor data from increasingly powerful sensing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>devices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Variable data rates depending on the application </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E.g. temperature-sensing RFIDs on power lines </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Location (GPS or RTLS) on field equipment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sensors are talking to decision making software which in turn is routing energy in various directions much like a router is forwarding data packets to the right destination </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Middleware </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determines what to do with the sensor data, adds intelligence, and then executes it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gets high level controls from next layer and executes on it </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Centralware </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Makes decision on what needs to get done </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Central repository of information </li></ul></ul>The Wireless Internet of Artifacts 2.0 – Edge, middle, core
  18. 18. The Wireless Internet of Artifacts 2.0 <ul><li>Filtration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Where is the filtration – Edge/Middle/Core? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where do the rules for filtration come from – Core? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Edge node is smart and knows at some level what to do </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How does one distinguish between the Edge, Middle and Core nodes? Why three levels? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Aggregation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Two sensor streams (S1 and S2) need to be combined into one (e.g. [power sensor] status in combination with [temperature and motion] status can be used to create a single boolean, at what level should the stream be discarded and only the boolean propagated further? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Messaging </li></ul>
  19. 19. Cyber security in the Smart Grid <ul><li>Cyber and Physical Security is important for the Smart Grid </li></ul><ul><li>Security of Wireless Devices is a bigger challenge than wired devices </li></ul><ul><li>Devices operating on standard wireless interfaces would require standardized security protocols </li></ul><ul><li>Existing protocols such as 802.11i, WEP, WPA, Public key/Private Key, etc. require systematic investigation and eventually security will scale out similar to the net – i.e. mixed/heterogeneou </li></ul><ul><li>Definition and meaning of security to an appliance needs to be researched </li></ul><ul><li>Physical security would involve adding motion/video/infrared sensors which would be integrated into the architecture of the system </li></ul>
  20. 20. Source CNET – Grid gets hacked <ul><li>Spies from other countries have hacked into the United States' electricity grid, leaving traces of their activity and raising concerns over the security of the U.S. energy infrastructure to cyberattacks. </li></ul><ul><li>The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday  published a report  saying that spies sought ways to navigate and control the power grid as well as the water and sewage infrastructure. It's part of a rising number of intrusions, the article said, quoting former and current national security officials. </li></ul><ul><li>There have long been concerns over  securing the power grid  and other infrastructure. Those security issues are mounting as utilities use more Internet-based communications and software to control the grid through smart-grid technology. </li></ul><ul><li>A report by security firm IOActive last month  warned  that people with $500 worth of equipment and the right training could manipulate smart meters with embedded communications in people's homes to potentially disrupt operation of the grid. </li></ul><ul><li>WIRELESS and Security </li></ul><ul><li>- Business case for Wireless relies on scalability, upgradeability and cost </li></ul><ul><li>- What is the model of security on the Smart Grid? Just like on the net, there will not be a single source of attack and so there will not be a single source of security </li></ul><ul><li>- What do you protect and where? You will have to made decisions based on cost benefit analysis, e.g. in the home the security requirements are different from the enterprise – Denial of service, Protocol hacked, firewalls, encryption </li></ul><ul><li>- Benefits - Mobile phones today are secure – so wireless on the Grid can be made secure </li></ul><ul><li>- </li></ul>
  21. 21. Reconfigurable Wireless Interface for Networking of Sensors (ReWINS) – Architecture - Fig. 1 Architecture of Intelligent sensor Interface - Hardware design of Intelligent sensor and wireless interface <ul><li>Multiple protocols </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Variable payloads - depending on the level of intelligence required by smart appliance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing devices - Works with existing devices and open for scaling up </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Multiple sensors – temperature, humidity, motion, shock, acceleration, gyroscopic, chemical </li></ul><ul><li>Embedded demand response intelligence within low-power Atmel processor </li></ul><ul><li>Accept time of day pricing </li></ul><ul><li>Framework for open AMI – connects with thermostats, meters, appliances, and HANs </li></ul>Sensor Interface Module 10 bits A/D Converter Multi Channel 16/32 bit Microcontroller 256KB EEPROM RF Transceiver Sensing Unit Digital Signal Analog Signal Sensors Actuators Data Processing RF Transceiver
  22. 22. WINSmartGrid - Reconfigurable Wireless Interface for Networking of Sensors (ReWINS)
  23. 23. WINSmartGrid – Technology <ul><li>Low Power technology </li></ul><ul><li>Open architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Standards-based hardware adapted to fit the problem resulting in lower overall cost </li></ul><ul><li>Wireless infrastructure for monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>Wireless infrastructure for control </li></ul><ul><li>Two-way communication </li></ul><ul><li>Service architecture with layers - Edgeware, Middleware and Centralware </li></ul><ul><li>Over the air download for real-time reconfigurability with wireless </li></ul><ul><li>Plug-and-Play approach to network installation </li></ul><ul><li>Reconfigurability - The capability of the technology to be reconfigurable allows OTA (over the air) upgrade of the firmware to be able to handle different appliances, applications, sensors, controllers, thermostats, smart meters, PHEVs. </li></ul>
  24. 24. <ul><li>Wireless protocols issues for in-home, in-office and in-factory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Zigbee / 6LoPan / Home plug </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WiFi </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bluetooth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rubee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EPC / RFID </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Protocols for in-field </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission Infrastructure – CDMA, GPRS, LTE, WiMAX, Broadband over power lines </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tracking and sensing technology for meters </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Active versus Passive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UHF/LF/HF/433Mhz </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data layer architecture issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bandwidth requirement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Power constraints </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Security Requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Database requirements </li></ul></ul>WINSmartGrid Architecture
  25. 25. Characteristics of WINSmartGrid <ul><li>Low Power technology </li></ul><ul><li>Standards-based adapted to fit the problem resulting in lower overall cost </li></ul><ul><li>Wireless infrastructure for monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>Wireless infrastructure for control </li></ul><ul><li>Service architecture with three layers - Edgeware, Middleware and Centralware </li></ul><ul><li>Open architecture for easy integration </li></ul><ul><li>Plug-and-Play approach to architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Reconfigurability - The capability of the technology to be reconfigurable allows OTA (over the air) upgrade of the firmware to be able to handle different devices, applications, sensors, controllers, thermostats, etc. </li></ul>
  26. 26. Smart Grid in WINSmartHome <ul><li>Three layers </li></ul><ul><li>Research issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the in-home architecture? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How does the 3 layer model work? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Which wireless comm protocol will actually work? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are current wireless protocols adequate? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can security be done and how important is security? </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Energy Manager <ul><li>WINSmartGrid UI </li></ul><ul><li>Simplicity for consumer use </li></ul><ul><li>Remote access and control </li></ul><ul><li>Open systems and tools for integration </li></ul>Backup Power > Consumption > Savings > Device Con. Breakdown > Profile > Environment >
  28. 28. The Smart Grid Research Center – In Progress Technology (cyber and physical) Grid (physical) Work force (physical, social) <ul><li>Partnership – Academia, Utilities, Government Labs, Regulators, Industry </li></ul><ul><li>Demo on UCLA Micro Grid </li></ul><ul><ul><li>March 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop demand response capability with UCLA WINSmartGrid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Objective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>to determine how demand response is accepted in Micro Grids </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>to determine what the % reduction demand response will be </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>to determine what the wireless and mobile communications infrastructure will look like for a scalable micro grid. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>to connect various smart appliances and devices on campus with the objective of studying how a heterogeneous wireless infrastructure performs when scaled up. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>open-systems to allow vendors to create plug-and-play sensor-enabled appliances </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PHEV affect on location-centric and </li></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 29. Research Thoughts – Wireless Internet for Smart Grid <ul><li>Long Term (25 years vision) versus short term (5 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Europe is ahead of us </li></ul><ul><li>PHEVs will eventually play a very important role </li></ul><ul><li>Major research issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Software architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration of sensor interface with demand response and building energy infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Smart Home Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Control loop in heterogeneous systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plug and play </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Model of cyber with infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Security needs to be solved before utilities will start to use wireless on a wide scale </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. The Wireless Internet of Artifacts Version 2.0 <ul><li>Heterogeneous wireless grid with mobile/roaming artifacts (objects, ICT devices & people) </li></ul><ul><li>Constantly in communication with the infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Control decisions made at the edge of the network (via Edgeware), in the middle (via Middleware) or at the core (Centralware)? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How is work load and intelligence distributed between these layers? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Messaging engine becomes key to transmit control data </li></ul><ul><li>Sitting on these networks are layers of I.P. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What does this protocol look like? Is the current I.P. protocol good enough? Should high-media content (such as sending video over HAN) adopt a different network approach from the rest of the network that only sends period sensor data? Is Video input a sensor? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allow rich content to move rapidly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have intelligence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>location-specific media compression, analysis and representation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time-specific DRM </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Context specific commerce models </li></ul></ul></ul>
  31. 31. The Wireless Internet of Artifacts <ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>With advances in technologies such as EVDO, WIMax, Zigbee, UWB, Rubee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Each wireless internet link will provide SLAs that data owner can purchase (Google open model) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources within a wireless network SLA would include variables such as </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bandwidth </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Power utilization (sensor data that needs to be sent infrequently between two nodes would opt for low-power networks such as a zigbee networks) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wireless networks that are remote would utilize energy harnessing (green circuits) to offer lower-cost transmission </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Designing, managing, controlling, using, and benefiting from a new genre of wireless internet of artifacts provides for interesting opportunities in the future.  </li></ul>
  32. 32. Measurement <ul><li>“ What is not measurable, make measurable” – Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) </li></ul><ul><li>Suggests that one of the aims of science is to find ways to measure attributes of things we are interested. </li></ul><ul><li>Measurement lies at the heart of many systems that govern our lives. </li></ul>
  33. 33. <ul><li>Measurement – process by which numbers or symbols are assigned to attributes of entities in the real world in such a way as to describe them according to clearly defined rules. </li></ul><ul><li>Entity – object or an event in the real world </li></ul><ul><li>Attribute – is a feature or property of an entity </li></ul>
  34. 34. Measurement <ul><li>Definition far from clear cut </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Height of person, but what about IQ, or quality of a wine? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measuring Instrument? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Margin for error with best instruments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What scale is appropriate? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We can say Joe is twice as tall as Fred, but why not yesterday was twice as hot </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We can take the average grade for a quiz, but what about the mean of the jersey numbers of the Seahawks? </li></ul></ul>
  35. 35. Measurement <ul><li>Measurement is a direct quantification </li></ul><ul><li>Calculation is indirect , we take measurements and combine them into a quantified item that reflects some attribute we are trying to understand (overall score in a decathlon) </li></ul><ul><li>In SE we often want to combine measurements to understand the “Big Picture” when discussing a project </li></ul>
  36. 36. Measurement in SE <ul><li>Software Engineering describes the collection of techniques that apply an engineering approach to construction and support of software products. </li></ul><ul><li>Activities include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Managing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Costing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modeling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analyzing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specifying </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Designing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Testing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintaining </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Continually striving to improve process and product </li></ul>
  37. 37. Measurement <ul><li>Electrical, Mechanical, Civil Engineering rely on measurement: measure variables, changes in behavior, measuring causes and effects: EE uses instruments to measure voltage, current, resistance to design circuits </li></ul><ul><li>Measurement Considered a luxury in SE </li></ul>
  38. 38. Measurement in SE <ul><ul><li>Fail to set measurable targets, thus cannot tell if we met our goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>User friendly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reliable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fail to understand components costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cost of design from cost of coding, testing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not predict quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Will or product fail </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We allow anecdotal evidence to convince us to try yet another revolutionary technology </li></ul></ul>
  39. 39. Measurements in SE <ul><li>Measurements made infrequently, inconsistently, and incompletely. </li></ul><ul><li>Can they be repeated? </li></ul>
  40. 40. Measurements in SE <ul><li>Managers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What does each process cost? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How productive is the staff? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How good is the code being developed? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will the user be satisfied with the products? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can we improve? </li></ul></ul>
  41. 41. Measurements in SE <ul><li>Engineers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are the requirements testable? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have we found all the faults? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have we met our product or process goals? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What will happen in the future? </li></ul></ul>
  42. 42. Scope of SE Metrics <ul><li>Cost and effort estimation </li></ul><ul><li>Productivity Measure </li></ul><ul><li>Data Collection </li></ul><ul><li>Quality Models and Measurement </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability Models </li></ul>
  43. 43. Exercise <ul><li>1. Explain the roll of measurement in determining the best players in your favorite sport. </li></ul><ul><li>2. How do you begin to measure quality of a software product? </li></ul>
  44. 44. Software Engineering Technology Infusion at NASA <ul><li>(1) understand the difference between technology transfer (the adoption of a new method by large segments of an industry) as an industry-wide phenomenon and the adoption of a new technology by an individual organization (called technology infusion), and </li></ul><ul><li>(2) does software engineering technology transfer differs from other engineering disciplines. While there is great interest today in developing technology transfer models for industry, it is the technology infusion process that actually causes changes in the current state of the practice. </li></ul>
  45. 45. Tech Transfer Problem <ul><li>One reason why there is so much interest in the diffusion of innovations is because getting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is often very difficult. There is a wide gap in many fields, between what is known and what is actually put into use. Many innovations require a lengthy period, often of some years, from the time when they become available to the time when they are widely adopted. </li></ul><ul><li>Problem: how to speed up the rate of diffusion of an innovation </li></ul>
  46. 46. Changes <ul><li>process improvement involves changes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minor: replacing one compiler or editor by another </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Major changes that affect the entire development process (e.g., using Cleanroom software development and eliminating much of the unit testing phase). </li></ul></ul>
  47. 47. Product Adoption
  48. 48. Product Adoption <ul><li>First few customers are the “oddballs” or “eccentrics” of society, who adopt a new product. </li></ul><ul><li>Following them are the “opinion leaders,” who then givetheir approval to the product. Society then follows these opinion leaders, and product growth follows rapidly. </li></ul><ul><li>During the mature stage, as the market saturates, growth levels off, giving the characteristic S-curve. </li></ul>
  49. 49. Technology Transfer <ul><li>Gatekeepers. Technology transfer follows a similar process. One member of an organization, often called the gatekeeper, monitors technological developments, and chooses those that seem appropriate for inclusion in an organization; hence opens the “gate” to the new technology. </li></ul><ul><li>Because this role is often informal, it may fall naturally to the most creative and technically astute individual in an organization. Since the gatekeeper is aware of technical developments outside of the organization, others in the group often look towards this person for guidance. This person often is known by the name “guru” or similar sounding monikers. </li></ul>
  50. 50. Models for Tech Transfer <ul><li>People mover model. In this approach, there is personal contact between the developer and the user of a technology. Typically there is some facilitator within the infusing organization that knows about the new technology and wishes to import it into the new organization (i.e., the gatekeeper). </li></ul><ul><li>This method was found to be the most prevalent and effective of all technology transfer methods. </li></ul><ul><li>1. Spontaneous gatekeeper role assumed by organization member. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Assigned gatekeeper role imposed by management on some organization member. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Umbrella gatekeeper role assumed by another organization to impose new technology on others. </li></ul>
  51. 51. Tech Transfer Models <ul><li>Communication model. In this approach, the new technology has appeared in print and, as with the </li></ul><ul><li>people mover model, some facilitator discovers the technology and wishes to infuse it into the new organization. The “print” mechanism may be internal documentation, conference reports or journal publications. </li></ul>
  52. 52. Tech Transfer Models <ul><li>3. On-the-shelf model. This approach, relatively rare, the new technology to be packaged so that non-experts can discover it and learn enough about it to begin the infusion process. It requires sufficient documentation so that others can easily pick it up and use it. </li></ul>
  53. 53. Tech Transfer <ul><li>Vendor model. This last method requires an organization to turn over the task to a vendor to sell them a new technology. It effectively turns the vendor into the agent of the People mover, Communication or On-the-shelf model. </li></ul>
  54. 54. Tech Transfer Models <ul><li>Rule model. This method uses an outside organization to impose a new technology on the development organization, which then infuses it into its own development process. </li></ul><ul><li>There are many examples within the government sector of this last technology transfer model. The mandating of the Ada language by the Department of Defense’s Ada Joint Program Office for system development, </li></ul><ul><li>the use of the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model to evaluate developer’s qualifications for a Department of Defense contract, </li></ul><ul><li>the similar process of using international standard ISO 9000 in Europe, and the use of Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are all examples of technology transfer imposed by an outside agency. </li></ul>
  55. 55. Tech Transfer <ul><li>Advocates. Fowler and Levine at the Software Engineering Institute have been investigating technology transition and have identified an extension to the gatekeeper model [6]. In their model, technology transition is a push–pull process: </li></ul><ul><li>Producer  Advocate  Receptor  Consumer </li></ul>
  56. 56. Tech Transfer <ul><li>The produce of the technology needs an advocate to export the technology outside of the development organization, while the consumer organization must have receptors agreeable to importing the technology. </li></ul><ul><li>In many instances, however, both the advocates and receptors are part of the consumer organization, and in practice, this reduces to a model very much like the gatekeeper. </li></ul>
  57. 57. Maturation <ul><li>The original concept for the technology appears as a published paper or initial prototype implementation. </li></ul><ul><li>2. The implementation of the technology involves the further development of the concept by the originator or successor organization until a stable useful version is created. </li></ul><ul><li>3. In the understanding stage, other organizations experiment, tailor, expand, modify, and try to use the technology. </li></ul><ul><li>4. In the later transition stage, use of the technology is further modified and expands across the industry. </li></ul><ul><li>5. The final maturation stage is reached when 70% of the industry uses the technology. </li></ul>
  58. 58. Maturation <ul><li>In 1985, Redwine and Riddle [11] published the first comprehensive study of software engineering technology transfer, </li></ul><ul><li>Maturation – what was the length of time required for a new concept to move from being a laboratory curiosity to general acceptance by industry. </li></ul><ul><li>In their study, they looked at 17 software development technologies from the 1960s through the early 1980s (e.g., UNIX, spreadsheets, object-oriented design, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Technologies, once developed, required an average of 7.5 years to become widely available </li></ul>
  59. 59. Case Studies <ul><li>NASA plays the role of consumer organization trying to adopt new technologies. </li></ul><ul><li>These technologies were studied by the Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) at Goddard Space Flight Center. </li></ul><ul><li>The SEL was organized in 1976 to study flight dynamics software, and since that time it has had a significant impact on software development activities within the Flight Dynamics Branch (e.g., measurement, resource estimation, testing, process improvement) </li></ul><ul><li>As a brief overview of SEL operations, the SEL has collected and archived data on over 125 software development projects. The data are also used to build typical project profiles against which ongoing projects can be compared and evaluated. The SEL provides managers in this environment with tools for monitoring and assessing project status. </li></ul><ul><li>Typically there are 6 to 10 projects simultaneously in progress in the flight dynamics environment. Each project is considered an experiment within the SEL, and the goal is to extract detailed information to understand the process better and to provide guidance to future projects. </li></ul><ul><li>Projects range in size from approximately 10K lines of source code to 300K to 500K at the high end. </li></ul><ul><li>Projects involve from 6 to 15 programmers and typically take from 12 to 24 months to complete. All software was originally written in FORTRAN, but Ada was introduced in the mid-1980s (see below), and there is now an increase in C and C++ programming. </li></ul>
  60. 60. Case Study <ul><li>Use of Ada </li></ul><ul><li>Ada is a language that was developed by the U.S. Department of Defense from 1976 until 1983 as a common language on which to build complex embedded applications. It is a general purpose programming language adaptable to any computing environment </li></ul>
  61. 61. Case Study - Ada <ul><li>Use of Ada on flight dynamics projects was first considered in 1985. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Because of Department of Defense interest in the language and because of NASA Johnson Space Center’s decision to use Ada for Space Station software, the SEL desired to look at its applicability for other NASA applications. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The initial stimulus for this activity, then, could be a mixture of the communication model (i.e., papers were written about Ada), on-the-shelf model (i.e., Ada products were being sold) and to some extent, the rule model (i.e., since Johnson Space Center adopted Ada, there was some pressure to do the same elsewhere within NASA). </li></ul></ul>
  62. 62. Case Study - Ada <ul><li>To truly evaluate the appropriateness of Ada within the SEL environment, a parallel development of an Ada (GRODY) and FORTRAN (GROSS) simulator was undertaken. </li></ul><ul><li>GROSS, as the operational product, had higher priority and was developed on time. GRODY, as an experiment to learn Ada, had a much longer development cycle. In addition, since GRODY was known by all to be an experiment, the development team was not as careful in its design </li></ul><ul><li>However, the experiences of the GRODY team with the typical set of requirements NASA used for such products led to a greater interest in applying object oriented technology instead as a model for future NASA requirements and design specifications. </li></ul><ul><li>Although the development of this simulator continued until early 1988, by early 1987 it was decided that the initial project was sufficiently successful to continue the investigation of Ada on other flight dynamics problems. </li></ul><ul><li>Elapsed time since start of Ada activity was 30 months. </li></ul>
  63. 63. Case Study - Ada <ul><li>Transition phase of technology Transfer. Because of the poor performance on the GRODY simulator and the problems with developing Ada requirements, the SEL undertook a second Ada pilot project (GOADA) as an experiment. </li></ul><ul><li>Sufficient confidence in Ada by this time to make GOADA an operational product, </li></ul><ul><li>In1990, Ada became the language of choice for simulators in the Flight Dynamics Division. Transition time was another 30 months. </li></ul>
  64. 64. Conclusions <ul><li>Infusion mechanisms do not address software engineering technologies well. </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative data is crucial for understanding software development processes </li></ul><ul><li>Technology infusion is not free. </li></ul>

×