Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical study of the state of the practice and acceptance of model-driven engineering in four industrial cases

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) has been promoted for many years as a means for handling the complexity of software development by raising the abstraction level and automating labor-intensive and error-prone tasks. However, there is little empirical evidence of the acceptance of MDE in industry which is the subject of this paper. The goal of this empirical study was to investigate the state of the practice of applying MDE and factors considered as important for its adoption. The subjects were developers of four large companies participating in a research project. The collected data came from multiple sources and covered the results of tool evaluations, interviews, and a survey. Among the factors, we found perceived usefulness, ease of use and the maturity of the tools to be important determinants for the adoption of MDE. We also discuss challenges with adopting MDE and present suggestions on how to succeed with the adoption process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. OMG, http://www.omg.org/

  2. Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/

  3. Eclipse Graphical Modeling Framework (GMF), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/gmf/

  4. http://www.modelplex.org/

  5. See http://domainengineering.org/ and http://www.dsmforum.org/

  6. http://www.limesurvey.org/

  7. Cronbach's alpha is a measure of intercorrelation among test items. Intercorrelations are maximized when all items measure the same construct.

  8. http://scrummethodology.com/

  9. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rup/

  10. These items are direct quotes.

  11. http://www.reuseware.org/index.php/Reuseware

  12. http://www.remics.eu

References

  • Creswell JW (2002) Research design – qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Sage Publications

  • Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3):318–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis F, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8):982–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybå T, Moe N.B, Mikkelsen E.M (2004) An empirical investigation on factors affecting software development acceptance and utilization of Electronic Process Guides. Proc. Software Metrics, 10th International Symposium (Metrics’04), pp. 220–231

  • Evans A, Mohagheghi P, Fernández MA (2009) Experiences of developing a network modeling tool using the Eclipse environment. Proc. 5th European Conference on Model Driven Architecture Foundations and Applications (ECMFA’09), LNCS 5562, pp 301–312

  • France R, Rumpe B (2007) Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. Int Conf Software Eng (ICSE’07), pp 37–54

  • Kirstan S, Zimmermann J (2010) Evaluating costs and benefits of model-based development of embedded software systems in the car industry - Results of a qualitative Case Study. Proc. ECMFA 2010 workshop C2M:EEMDD- from Code Centric to Model Centric: Evaluating the Effectiveness of MDD, pp. 18–29

  • MODELWARE (2006) Deliverable D5.3-1 Industrial ROI, assessment, and feedback- master document, revision 2.2.

  • Moe NB, Dybå T (2006) The use of an Electronic Process Guide in a medium-sized software development company. Software Process Improv Pract 11:21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohagheghi P, Dehlen V (2008) Where is the proof? A review of experiences from applying MDE in industry. Proc. 4th European Conference on Model Driven Architecture Foundations and Applications (ECMFA’08), LNCS 5095, pp. 432–443

  • Mohagheghi P, Fernández MA, Martell JA, Fritzsche M, Gilani W (2008) MDE adoption in industry: challenges and success criteria. Models in Software Engineering, Workshops and Symposia at MODELS 2008, LNCS 5421, pp. 54–59

  • Mohagheghi P (2010) An approach for empirical evaluation of model-driven engineering in multiple dimensions. Proc. C2M:EEMDD 2010 workshop at ECMFA 2010- from Code Centric to Model Centric: Evaluating the Effectiveness of MDD, pp. 6–17

  • Riemenschneider CK, Hardgrave BC, Davis FD (2002) Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: a comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Trans Software Eng 28(12):1135–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staron M (2006) Adopting model driven software development in industry- a case study at two companies. Proc ACM/IEEE 9th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS/UML 2006), LNCS 4199:57–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Walderhaug S, Mikalsen M, Benc I, Erlend S (2008) Factors affecting developers' use of MDSD in the healthcare domain: evaluation from the MPOWER project. Proc. From Code Centric to Model Centric Software Engineering: Practices, Implications and ROI. Workshop at European Conference on Model-Driven Architecture

  • Yin R.K (2002) Case study research – design and methods. Third edition, Sage publications

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the MODELPLEX project (IST-FP6-2006 Contract No. 34081, co-funded by the European Commission as part of the 6th Framework Program), REMICS project (funded by the European Commission, contract number 257793, within the 7th Framework Program) and by CNCS-UEFISCDI grant no. 7/05.08.20.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SINTEF, Oslo, Norway

    Parastoo Mohagheghi

  2. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Oslo, Norway

    Parastoo Mohagheghi

  3. SAP Research Center, Belfast, United Kingdom

    Wasif Gilani

  4. Department of Computer Science, University of Pitesti, Pitesti, Romania

    Alin Stefanescu

  5. Ericsson, Valladolid, Spain

    Miguel A. Fernandez

Authors
  1. Parastoo Mohagheghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wasif Gilani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alin Stefanescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Miguel A. Fernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Parastoo Mohagheghi.

Additional information

Editor: Margaret-Anne Storey

Appendices

Appendix A. Semi-Structured Interviews

The following is the list of questions used in the semi-structured interviews:

  1. 1.

    Do you use an MDE approach now?

  2. 2.

    If yes:

    1. a.

      What is the main purpose?

    2. b.

      Which tools are basically used?

    3. c.

      How do you use MDE? Extensive modeling in requirements/analysis/design/testing/system management, generating artifacts from model (M2M or M2T), meta-modeling, separation of concerns in views or CIM/PIM/PSM distinction?

    4. d.

      What are the expected benefits? Do you find it useful in your job?

    5. e.

      Are you satisfied with the state of the tools regarding ease of use? Problems?

    6. f.

      Are you satisfied with the state of the tools regarding tool maturity? Problems?

    7. g.

      Are you satisfied with the state of the tools regarding compatibility? Problems?

If not using, why?

  1. 3.

    Do you think there are disadvantages regarding MDE?

  2. 4.

    Which software process do you have? Is that model-based or adapted to MDE?

  3. 5.

    How you describe your software development process now?

  4. 6.

    Which tools are mainly used at the moment?

  5. 7.

    Do you use the following tools and technologies developed in the project? If yes, how? A list of tools and technologies were provided. The scale is: Not used at all, Used occasionally, Used on a regular basis in a few projects, Used on a regular basis in most projects, Used on a regular basis in all projects, Used experimentally in research projects.

  6. 8.

    Are you satisfied with the developed tools regarding ease of use, tool maturity and compatibility?

Appendix B. On-line Survey

The questions were distributed randomly in the questionnaire.

Current usage:

  1. 1.

    How would you describe the current usage of the MDE approach in different projects at your department? Scale is: Not used at all, Used on an experimental basis, Used on a regular basis by few projects or people, Used on a regular basis by most projects or people, Used on a regular basis by all projects or people.

  2. 2.

    For how many years have you been using MDE or experimenting with it?

  3. 3.

    How would you describe your expertise in MDE?

  4. 4.

    Which of the following tools have you been using or experimenting with in the project? The list included 23 tools in addition to Eclipse, DSLs and UML profiles. The scale was the same as in Question 1.

Perceived usefulness:

  1. 1.

    I find the MDE approach useful in my job.

  2. 2.

    Using the MDE approach improves my job performance.

  3. 3.

    Using the MDE approach increases my productivity.

  4. 4.

    Using the MDE approach enhances the quality of my job.

  5. 5.

    Using the MDE approach makes it easier to do my job.

  6. 6.

    Overall the advantages of using the MDE approach outweigh the disadvantages.

  7. 7.

    Open-ended question: Based on your experience, what are the main advantages and disadvantages of using the MDE approach?

Perceived ease of use:

  1. 1.

    Learning to use the MDE approach was easy for me.

  2. 2.

    Using the MDE approach does not require a lot of mental effort.

  3. 3.

    I think the MDE approach is clear and understandable.

  4. 4.

    The MDE approach is not cumbersome to use.

  5. 5.

    I find the MDE approach easy to use.

Perceived compatibility:

  1. 1.

    The MDE approach is compatible with the way I develop software.

  2. 2.

    Using the MDE approach is compatible with all aspects of my work.

  3. 3.

    Using the MDE approach fits well with the way I work.

  4. 4.

    The MDE approach is compatible with the way we organize our work.

Perceived maturity of tools:

  1. 1.

    The MDE tools I use are easy to use.

  2. 2.

    The MDE tools I use provide the functionality I need.

  3. 3.

    Using MDE tools improve the way I develop software.

  4. 4.

    The MDE tools I use are compatible with one another and the results can be integrated into one development process.

  5. 5.

    The MDE tools I use are suitable for both small and large projects.

  6. 6.

    The MDE tools I use have acceptable performance.

  7. 7.

    Please assign scores to the tools that you have been using or experimenting with in the project. Scores are: 0—very dissatisfied; 1—dissatisfied; 2—neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 3—satisfied; 4—very satisfied; 5—don't know.

Subjective norm:

  1. 1.

    Co-workers think I should use MDE.

  2. 2.

    People who influence my work think I should use the MDE approach.

  3. 3.

    People who are important to me think I should use the MDE approach.

Future usage intentions:

  1. 1.

    I intend to increase my use of the MDE approach for work in the future.

  2. 2.

    Given a choice, I would prefer not to use the MDE approach for work in the future.

  3. 3.

    I intend to use the MDE approach in the future for my work.

  4. 4.

    I would like to use the MDE approach in the future for my work.

  5. 5.

    How would you describe your intentions regarding future use of the following tools? The same list as Current usage-Question 4 was provided. The possible responses were: a) Yes, I intend to use or continue in future; b) I will probably use it in future; c) I have not tried it but would like to experiment in future; d) I have not tried and don't think I will do in future; e) I will not use it in future; f) Don't know.

Appendix C. Scores Given to Tools and Approaches

The following tables provide scores given to the tools that have been used by more than one company in the project. The scale is: 0—very dissatisfied, 1—dissatisfied, 2—neither satisfied or dissatisfied, 3—satisfied, 4—very satisfied, and don't know. We also asked for the developers’ opinions regarding Eclipse as the integration platform in the project, DSLs and UML profiles.

Table 3 Lightweight model repository (prototype developed by Fraunhofer FOKUS)
Full size table
Table 4 Reusewarea composition framework for model composition
Full size table
Table 5 Test derivator and TTCN test generatora (prototype developed by Fraunhofer FOKUS)
Full size table
Table 6 TraMDEa tool for trace definition and analysis
Full size table
Table 7 Model-Driven Performance Engineering toola chain used by company A in few projects and by company C on an experimental basis
Full size table
Table 8 Domain-specific languages
Full size table
Table 9 UML profiles
Full size table
Table 10 Eclipse as a platform for MDE
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mohagheghi, P., Gilani, W., Stefanescu, A. et al. An empirical study of the state of the practice and acceptance of model-driven engineering in four industrial cases. Empir Software Eng 18, 89–116 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-012-9196-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-012-9196-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation