A Collaborative Method for Scoping Software Product Lines: A Case Study in a Small Software Company^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes CoMeS-SPL (a Collaborative Method for Scoping an SPL), applies it to a software company and one of its products, and presents the results obtained. It describes clear steps, roles and artifacts. 

The proposed method is evaluated based on several metrics and the results show the usefulness and importance of the proposed CoMeS-SPL.

The results are encouraging and show the usefulness of the proposed approach. Aside from the case study of the Sunset Software House company, it is not clear, however, the relationships between what is described in this paper and the authors' previous work.

"Retrospective of cooperation experience" is an important section; it shows that the authors sat down with the people from the target company to evaluate the obtained results. 
#It is not clear who the 4 participants from the company are here (which roles they have).

#If possible, Figures 1 and 3 should be redrawn, so that the text is easier to read.
English language editing is needed.
(The first half of the paper seems more carefully written than the second half.)

Also, there are several typos, omissions etc.; some examples appear below.

• line 26: and and
• line 108: that considering
• line 143: it this notation
• lines 223-225: rewrite the sentence, please
• line 283: looking an answer

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and recommendations for improvement. Your specific suggestions for improving the manuscript have been taken into account in the following manner: Thank you for your comments and recommendations for improvement. Your specific suggestions for improving the manuscript have been taken into account in the following way:

 

Point 1.1: The results are encouraging and show the usefulness of the proposed approach. Aside from the case study of the Sunset Software House company, it is not clear, however, the relationships between what is described in this paper and the authors' previous work.

Response: In the revised paper, we added the subsection "3.3 Formulation and evolution of the CoMeS-SPL method" was included (lines 248-271). In this new subsection, we briefly present the previous work done by researchers related to the empirical experience presented in this paper.

Point 1.2: It is not clear who the 4 participants from the company are here (which roles they have)

Response: In Section 5 “Execution of the study” of the revised paper, we added Table 5. This table shows the relation company positions with the method roles, where the people of the company (positions) and the roles of the method they performed are listed. In Section 7 “Retrospective of cooperation experience”, we modified the first paragraph (lines 572-579) to indicate which were the company positions and roles that participated in the retrospective.

 

Point 1.3: If possible, Figures 1, 2 and 3 should be redrawn, so that the text is easier to read.

Response: The figures 1-4 were redrawn to be clearer.

 

Point 1.4: English language editing is needed. (The first half of the paper seems more carefully written than the second half.)

Response: The paper was carefully reviewed and edited again. An English professor checked the second half of this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

applsci-1187333-peer-review-v1

This paper proposes a collaborative method called CoMeS-SPL for scoping of software product. The authors present the experiences from applying the method at a small software company in Colombia.

In the introduction you claim that there is a lack of collaborative SPL scoping methods. I agree with this argumentation, however scoping is decision making just like many other decision making processes in software development. Looking at wider decision making you can find quite many collaborative methods for decision making.

I like Table 1 that shows the scoping approaches – the main question I have here is if these approaches are for the entire portfolio (so a number of products) or maybe can also be applied for scoping a single product. In other words can You used them for scoping of the common part (the platform) or maybe also the variable parts (the details of the products that share the same platform) ?

Looking at Figure 1 I wonder how it related to a product strategy document, please discuss it in the discussion section. There are many product strategy frameworks, for example you can look at the ISPMA product strategy document. www.ispma.org

Why using the modeling method proposed by Solano and no other method ? Please explain.

I like Table 2 it presents a nice summary of the steps and the created artifacts.

I am missing product managers on the list of participants in Section 3.2 are they not needed here?

Section 4.2 – so here you talk about a product called CORA so my question is how it this portfolio planning if you only have one product ? I mean you claim your method supports portfolio planning but your case study examines one product.

I like the execution of the case study I think you did a decent work trying to measure if your method is helpful and in what aspects it is, good work.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and recommendations for improvement. Your specific suggestions for improving the manuscript have been taken into account in the following way:

 

Point 2.1: In the introduction you claim that there is a lack of collaborative SPL scoping methods. I agree with this argumentation, however scoping is decision making just like many other decision making processes in software development. Looking at wider decision making you can find quite many collaborative methods for decision making.

Response: In the revised paper, we added a paragraph in the introduction, which analyzes the collaborative proposals in the field of decision-making and scoping SPL (lines 51-64).

 

Point 2.2 I like Table 1 that shows the scoping approaches – the main question I have here is if these approaches are for the entire portfolio (so a number of products) or maybe can also be applied for scoping a single product. In other words can You used them for scoping of the common part (the platform) or maybe also the variable parts (the details of the products that share the same platform)?

Response: In the revised paper, we added two paragraphs before Table 1, which explain what determines each of the types of scope, and how they are used to determine the common elements and the variables of the products belonging to the line. In addition, we explained one of the artifacts of the proposed method because it is related to the identification of common and variables elements (lines 123-138).

 

Point 2.2 Looking at Figure 1 I wonder how it related to a product strategy document, please discuss it in the discussion section. There are many product strategy frameworks, for example you can look at the ISPMA product strategy document. www.ispma.org

Response: In the revised paper, we added a paragraph in the Conclusion section (lines 635-643). We discussed the idea that CoMeS-SPL could be applied together with the ISPMA (International Software Product Management Association) framework to support software product management, particularly for specifying the product scope and the product strategy as a product family.

Point 2.3 Why using the modeling method proposed by Solano and no other method ? Please explain.

Response: In the revised paper, we added in Section 3 “CoMeS-SPL Method” three footnotes to explain why the extended Hamsters notation is selected and no other 3 notations (page 6).

 

Point 2.4  I am missing product managers on the list of participants in Section 3.2 are they not needed here?

Response. The product manager is a position not clearly identified in Sunset House company. However, after reviewing the ISPMA framework, we established that the project manager in the Sunset House company performs as a product manager as well. Although it is not the ideal responsibility assignment, this is part of the company's context. Sunset House is a small company oriented to projects reusing a software platform called CORA. In this case study, the platform started a reengineering process toward a product strategy based on the SPL paradigm. Thus, we included the product manager position in Table 5. Additionally, in the case study's description, we added the product manager position together with the project manager position; and we indicated that these two positions were assigned to the application domain expert SPL role in the CoMes method.

 

Point 2.5 Section 4.2 – so here you talk about a product called CORA so my question is how it this portfolio planning if you only have one product ? I mean you claim your method supports portfolio planning but your case study examines one product.

Response: In the revised paper, in section 4.2 “Company context”, we added a paragraph in which we comment the relationship between the CORA name for the initial product and the platform of reusable modules for the product line (lines 380-388). We also added a paragraph explaining the extractive approach to propose a product line based on a product already developed by the company (lines 389-399).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf