1ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing The Question How can we integrate our methods and tools into software development processes seamlessly? –we have to have a good understanding of what industrial people (those building safety & mission critical software) want and need

2ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Our group Carl Gunter Jaime Lee Kang Shin James Widmaier Bruce Krogh Matt Dwyer

3ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Vision For The (near) Future Industry/govt perspective –Build on existing methods (cleanroom, specware) 1.Requirement Document + Operational Profiles 2.Formalize Requirements (identify state variables) 3.State transition diagrams 4.Automate code generation 5.Testing driven from operational profiles –Missing tool support for several transitions (1->2, 2->3) Observations –“process metrics” lead to confidence in product (mismatch from “product-based” methods we’ve discussed) –“reliability” in terms of numbers of 9s (Is reliability sensible? Should it be a question of existence of stimuli in the profile that lead to failure?)

4ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Standard and Certification Standardization of development processes –want a standard way of building HCES software –From requirements to code (and back) –Can we build on existing standards General standards ISO Layers of domains specific standards –Security common criteria, … Certification –regulatory standards (e.g., FAA) –procurement standards (e.g., NSA, FDA) specify metrics about process & product metrics need technologies to provide those metrics

5ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Technology Assessment Lots of popular processes –XP (in embedded systems?) –RUP, UML-based methods –These are not focused on high-confidence as the goal They have some useful ideas –Higher-level descriptions (but weak semantics – UML) –Early feedback (co-develop tests/code – XP) Some methods seem effective –Cleanroom, specware –Designed for production of reliable software –Anecdotal evidence that they can support development of high-confidence system

6ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Required Technologies (for embedded systems?) Requirements are the key –Need support for eliciting requirements Did I account for all the corner cases? Closing the “detail gaps” in requirements Automated guidance in the form of a “wizard” (domain specific) –Need support for formalizing requirements Identification of state variables (semi) automated methods for developing state diagrams Test generation tools –From formal specifications Code generation from models –Some support exists –Is it sufficiently general? –Correctness of code is more important than speed As long as you can meet your deadlines, extra performance is irrelevant Proof generating translators (to verify translation) Scalability and usability of existing formal tools is in question? –Can they be applied to realistic systems? –Can they be used by practitioners?

7ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Integrating Technologies (within HCES teams) Common conceptual framework/process –To plug ideas/technologies into –To get see a path through technologies from reqts to code Map those paths onto the “vision” Technological integration –Standardization of languages/APIs –Make tools available to other team members –Targeted interactions e.g., HERMES -> Bandera for mixed design/code checking e.g., pub/sub research from CMU and K-state

8ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Technology Transfer Initiated by the academia –Students as carriers of technologies internships/employees –Requires that students are trained in appropriate methods and technologies –Publication Initiated by industry –Driven by needs of emerging projects Small demonstration projects –From industry/govt. research organization to development groups –Prototype a real system, if succesful move to have it required on upcoming contracts Robustness of tool support –Tools need to be scalable, documented, … –Insufficient resources in academia, not the focus –Many organizations want a company “on the hook” Challenge problems from industry –Can be lots of work to document reqts for external people –Need to get in at the beginning of a project Long time scale for effective transfer –15-20 year time scale from idea formation to fielded technology Can we view follow on applied research be viewed as tech transfer?

9ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Ways to Sell To Program Current research is helping current DOD projects (e.g., F18, CARA, secure kernel, …) –Having impact on specific artifacts, stages of development –[more specifics here] Prospects for greater impact by better coverage of –Development artifacts –Steps in development process Because we don’t have a complete solution –Missing important tools that will enable more dependable solutions (e.g., requirements -> state var/diagrams) Spin-off technology to private sector –Create COTS technology that can be taken up by DOD more cheaply University Research Initiatives –Research to lay the foundation for the future applied research and applications –Training of researchers (“human resources development”)

10ARO PI Meeting May 2002I am not Jeannette M. Wing Misc What is ARO’s vision for embedded software? –Application domains –Commonality among programs/projects