An Empirical Comparison of Reuse in Embedded and Nonembedded Systems

High-quality software, delivered on time and budget, constitutes a critical part of most products and services in modern society. Our government has invested billions of dollars to develop software assets, often to redevelop the same capability many times. Recognizing the waste involved in redeveloping these assets, in 1992 the Department of Defense issued the Software Reuse Initiative. The vision of the Software Reuse Initiative was "To drive the DoD software community from its current "re-invent the software" cycle to a process-driven, domain-specific, architecture-centric, library-based way of constructing software.'' Twenty years after issuing this initiative, there is evidence of this vision beginning to be realized in nonembedded systems. However, virtually every large embedded system undertaken has incurred large cost and schedule overruns. Investigations into the root cause of these overruns implicates reuse. Why are we seeing improvements in the outcomes of these large scale nonembedded systems and worse outcomes in embedded systems? This question is the foundation for this research. The experiences of the Aerospace industry have led to a number of questions about reuse and how the industry is employing reuse in embedded systems. For example, does reuse in embedded systems yield the same outcomes as in nonembedded systems? Are the outcomes positive? If the outcomes are different, it may indicate that embedded systems should not use data from nonembedded systems for estimation. Are embedded systems using the same development approaches as nonembedded systems? Does the development approach make a difference? If embedded systems develop software differently from nonembedded systems, it may mean that the same processes do not apply to both types of systems. What about the reuse of different artifacts? Perhaps there are certain artifacts that, when reused, contribute more or are more difficult to use in embedded systems. Finally, what are the success factors and obstacles to reuse? Are they the same in embedded systems as in nonembedded systems? The research in this dissertation is comprised of a series of empirical studies using professionals in the aerospace and defense industry as its subjects. The main focus has been to investigate the reuse practices of embedded systems professionals and nonembedded systems professionals and compare the methods and artifacts used against the outcomes. The research has followed a combined qualitative and quantitative design approach. The qualitative data were collected by surveying software and systems engineers, interviewing senior developers, and reading numerous documents and other studies. Quantitative data were derived from converting survey and interview respondents' answers into coding that could be counted and measured. From the search of existing empirical literature, we learned that reuse in embedded systems are in fact significantly different from nonembedded systems, particularly in effort in model based development approach and quality where the development approach was not specified. The questionnaire showed differences in the development approach used in embedded projects from nonembedded projects, in particular, embedded systems were significantly more likely to use a heritage/legacy development approach. There was also a difference in the artifacts used, with embedded systems more likely to reuse hardware, test products, and test clusters. Nearly all the projects reported using code, but the questionnaire showed that the reuse of code brought mixed results. One of the differences expressed by the respondents to the questionnaire was the difficulty in reuse of code for embedded systems when the platform changed. The semistructured interviews were performed to tell us why the phenomena in the review of literature and the questionnaire were observed. We asked respected industry professionals, such as senior fellows, fellows and distinguished members of technical staff, about their experiences with reuse. We learned that many embedded systems used heritage/legacy development approaches because their systems had been around for many years, before models and modeling tools became available. We learned that reuse of code is beneficial primarily when the code does not require modification, but, especially in embedded systems, once it has to be changed, reuse of code yields few benefits. Finally, while platform independence is a goal for many in nonembedded systems, it is certainly not a goal for the embedded systems professionals and in many cases it is a detriment. However, both embedded and nonembedded systems professionals endorsed the idea of platform standardization. Finally, we conclude that while reuse in embedded systems and nonembedded systems is different today, they are converging. As heritage embedded systems are phased out, models become more robust and platforms are standardized, reuse in embedded systems will become more like nonembedded systems.

Do Methods Matter In Global Leadership Development? A Mixed-Methods Study Of A U.s.-Based International Mba Program

As world communication, technology, and trade become increasingly integrated through globalization, multinational corporations seek employees with global leadership experience and skills. However, the demand for these skills currently outweighs the supply. Given the rarity of globally ready leaders, global competency development should be emphasized in higher education programs. The reality, however, is that university graduate programs are often outdated and focus mostly on cognitive learning. Global leadership competence requires moving beyond the cognitive domain of learning to create socially responsible and culturally connected global leaders. This requires attention to development methods; however, limited research in global leadership development methods has been conducted. A new conceptual model, the global leadership development ecosystem, was introduced in this study to guide the design and evaluation of global leadership development programs. It was based on three theories of learning and was divided into four development methodologies. This study quantitatively tested the model and used it as a framework for an in-depth examination of the design of one International MBA program. The program was first benchmarked, by means of a qualitative best practices analysis, against the top-ranking IMBA programs in the world. Qualitative data from students, faculty, administrators, and staff was then examined, using descriptive and focused data coding. Quantitative data analysis, using PASW Statistics software, and a hierarchical regression, showed the individual effect of each of the four development methods, as well as their combined effect, on student scores on a global leadership assessment. The analysis revealed that each methodology played a distinct and important role in developing different competencies of global leadership. It also confirmed the critical link between self-efficacy and global leadership development.

Group Dynamics in Sex Offender Treatment Involving Individuals with Personality Disorders

This qualitative investigation primarily employing a phenomenological perspective and psychoanalytic interview approach intends to provide contextual understanding of group dynamics in sex offender treatment involving individuals with strong features of personality disorders or Axis II psychopathology according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (4 ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Of note, this study particularly focuses on the cluster B type (Narcissistic, Borderline, Histrionic, and Antisocial Personality Disorders), based on the assumption that this type is more interpersonally operational in its nature. The present study is based on semi-structured interviews of three clinicians who arecurrently providing group treatment for sex offenders. The interview was designed to elicit the participants' clinical observations of group dynamics involving group members with features of the Axis II, Cluster B type. In this study, 11 therapeutic factors postulated by Yalom (2005) were utilized to qualitatively investigate group dynamics. Analyses of qualitative data highlighted how group members with features of the Axis II, Cluster B type may distinctively affect group dynamics. Based on the results, group members with Axis II diagnoses, as reported bythe therapists who responded to this study, were observed to present with altruistic behaviors in group. In addition, motivation appeared to be one of the most influential factors in promoting and maintaining therapeutic group behaviors. Group members with antisocial features appeared to present with low motivation for treatment, and individualswith a pervasive history of criminal institutionalization seemed more prone to disengagement in group. Individuals with borderline and histrionic traits seemed to be interpersonally oriented and affectively engaged in group process. Persons with a narcissistic tendency also appeared to be interpersonally invested and showed altruistic behaviors, yet the importance of confirming their superiority seemed to outweigh the need for acceptance or approval from other group members. As briefly discussed above, the qualitative analyses of the current data showed that individuals with Axis II disorders, Cluster B type uniquely affect group dynamics, which suggest clinical considerations foreffective treatment planning, maintenance, and outcomes.

Ethnic Violence on Kenya's Periphery: Informal Institutions and Local Resilience in Conflict-Affected Communities

Deadly, inter-ethnic group conflict remains a threat to international security in a world where the majority of armed violence occurs not only within states but in the most ungoverned areas within states. Conflicts that occur between groups living in largely ungoverned areas often become deeply protracted and are difficult to resolve when the state is weak and harsh environmental conditions place human security increasingly under threat. However, even under these conditions, why do some local conflicts between ethnic groups escalate, whereas others do not? To analyze this puzzle, the dissertation employs comparative methods to investigate the conditions under which violence erupts or stops and armed actors choose to preserve peace. The project draws upon qualitative data derived from semi-structured interviews, focus group dialogues, and participant observation of local peace processes during field research conducted in six conflict-affected counties in Northern Kenya. Comparative analysis of fifteen conflict episodes with variable outcomes reveals the conditions under which coalitions of civic associations, including local peace committees, faith-based organizations, and councils of elders, inter alia, enhance informal institutional arrangements that contain escalation. Violence is less likely to escalate in communities where cohesive coalitions provide platforms for threat-monitoring, informal pact making, and enforcement of traditional codes of restitution. However, key scope conditions affect whether or not informal organizational structures are capable of containing escalation. In particular, symbolic acts of violence and the use of indiscriminant force by police and military actors commonly undermine local efforts to contain conflict. The dissertation contributes to the literatures on civil society and peacebuilding, demonstrating the importance of comparing processes of escalation and non-escalation and accounting for interactive effects between modes of state and non-state response to local, inter-ethnic group conflict.