Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Push or pull: Two cognitive modes of systematic experience transfer at DaimlerChrysler

  • Chapter 3: Applications
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Learning Software Organizations (SEKE 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1756))

Abstract

Individuals learn from experience no matter what they do. But what is natural for an individual is far less straight-forward in groups or companies. There are some suggestions in literature how this hurdle can be overcome: The experience factory is a concept tailored to the software domain. In the tradition of this domain, however, the concepts are generally activity-or organization-focused and only rarely address cognitive issues.

At DaimlerChrysler, we were called in to establish experience transfer at the organizational levels in three business units. In three case studies, we saw a recurring pattern of cognitive tasks. While these tasks were carried out quite differently, there is a core to each of them that should not be neglected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M.S. Ackermanm. Augmenting the organizational memory: A field study of Answer Garden. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSWS), 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. V. Basili, G. Caldiera, F. McGarry, R. Pajerski, and G. Page. The Software Engineering Laboratory—An operational software experience factory. In Proceedings of the 14 th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 370–381, May 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. V.R. Basili, G. Caldiera, and H.D. Rombach. Experience factory. In Marciniak [24]. pages 469–476.

    Google Scholar 

  4. V.R. Basili, G. Caldiera, and H.D. Rombach. Goal question metric paradigm. In Marciniak [24]. pages 528–532.

    Google Scholar 

  5. V.R. Basili and H.D. Rombach. Support for comprehensive reuse. Software Engineering Journal, pages 303–316, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gro"ses Handlexikon in Farbe, Gütersloh, 1979. Bertelsmann Verlagsgruppe.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J.S. Brown and P. Duguid. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 1(2):40–57, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. P. Conklin and M. Begeman. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. Transactions of Office Information Systems, 6(4):303–331, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M.A. Cusumano. Japan's software factories: A challenge to U.S. management. Oxford University Press, New York, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. C. Differding, B. Hoisl, and C.M. Lott. Technology package for the goal question metric paradigm. Technical Report 281/96, Universität Kaiserslautern, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Fischer. Supporting Learning on demand with design environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS), pages 165–172, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. Fischer. Turning breakdowns into opportunities for creativity. Knowledge-Based Systems, 7(4):221–232, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. G. Fischer, A. Girgensohn, K. Nakakoji, and D.F. Redmiles. Supporting software designers with integrated domain-oriented design environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(6):511–522, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. G. Fischer, S.R. Henninger, and D.F. Redmiles. Cognitive tools for locating and comprehending software objects for reuse. In Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 318–328, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Fischer, S. Lindstaedt, J. Ostwald, K. Schneider, and J. Smith. Informaing system design through organizational learning. In Proceedings on the 2 nd International Conference on the Learning Society (ICLS), pages 52–59, Northwestern University, Evanston, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  16. F. Houdek. Software quality improvement by using an experience factory. In R. Dumke, F. Lehner, and A. Abran, editors, Software Metrics—Research and Practice in Software Measurement, pages 167–182. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  17. F. Houdek and H. Kempter. Quality patterns—An approach to packaging software engineering experience. ACM Software Engineering Notes, 22(3):81–88, May 1997. M. Harandi (ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Software Reusability (SSR).

    Google Scholar 

  18. F. Houdek, K. Schneider, and E. Wieser. Establishing experience factories at Daimler-Benz—An experience report. In Proceedings of the 20 th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 443–447. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  19. A.L. Kidd, editor. Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems. Plenum Press, New York, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  20. C.W. Krueger. Software reuse. ACM Computing Surveys, 24(2):131–183, 1992.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. D. Landes and K. Schneider, Systematic analysis and use of experiences from software projects at Daimler-Benz. In A. Oberweis and H.M. Sneed, editors, Software Management '97, pages 63–73. Teubner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1997. (In German).

    Google Scholar 

  22. D. Landes, K. Schneider, and F. Houdek. Organizational learning and experience documentation in industrial software projects. International Journal on Human-Computer Studies, 51:643–661, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. S. Lindstaedt. Group memories: A knowledge medium for communities of interest. PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J.J. Marciniak, editor. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, volume 1. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. C. McClure. Extending the software process to include reuse. Symposium on Software Reusability, May 1997. Tutorial.

    Google Scholar 

  26. F. McGarry. Experimental software engineering; packaging for reuse. In H.D. Rombach, V.R. Basili, and R.W. Selby, editors, Experimental software engineering issues: critical assessment and future directions, number 706 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 213–215. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. Ostwald. The evolving artifact approach: Knowledge construction in collaborative software development. PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Perfect Consortium. Part 9: The PEF model. In Perfect Project Documentation. ESPRIT Project 9090, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Polanyi. The tacit dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  30. F. Puppe. Systematic introduction to expert systems: Knowledge representation and problem-solving methods. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. K. Schneider. Prototypes as assets, not toys. why and how to extract knowledge from prototypes. In Proceedings of the 18 th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 522–531, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  32. D.A. Schön. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  33. P. Senge. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday Currency, N.Y., 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  34. M. Stolze. Visual critiquing in domain oriented design environments: Showing the right thing at the right place. In J.S. Gero and F. Sudweeks, editors, Artificial Intelligence in Design '94, pages 467–482. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  35. L.G. Terveen, P.G. Selfridge, and M.D. Long. From folklore to living design memory—human factors in computing systems. In Proceedings of INTERCHI '93, pages 15–22, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  36. K.E. Watkins and V.J. Marsick. Sculpting the learning organization—Lessons in the art and science of systematic change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  37. T. Winograd and F. Flores. Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, 1986.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research and Technology, Dept. Software Engineering, DaimlerChrystler AG, P.O. Box 23 60, D-89075, Ulm, Germany

    Eva Wieser, Frank Houdek & Kurt Schneider

Authors
  1. Eva Wieser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Houdek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kurt Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Günther Ruhe Frank Bomarius

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wieser, E., Houdek, F., Schneider, K. (2000). Push or pull: Two cognitive modes of systematic experience transfer at DaimlerChrysler. In: Ruhe, G., Bomarius, F. (eds) Learning Software Organizations. SEKE 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1756. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0101421

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0101421

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41430-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44470-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation