Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE) Volume 8 Number 03 (98th Issue) - March 15, 1998 793 subscribers Note: If you have problems with the format of this document, try ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Table of Contents Letter from the Academic Editor We Live In Exciting Times Welcome to All Our New Readers! Omission Regarding Last Month's Topic This Month's Topic: Software Education Next Month's Topic: Software Law in Education and Training 100th Issue (May 1998) Topic - FASE: Past and Future Other Upcoming Topics Departments Formatting of FASE FASE-TALK and Breaking News Back Issues of FASE Needed Countries with Subscribers to FASE News Items Licensing Issues Texas State Board of Professional Engineers Officially Recognizes Software Engineering for Licensing Purposes Reaction to Texas State Board's Vote, and Some Q&A Accreditation Issues IEEE Submits Proposed SE Program Criteria to ABET JTF draft accreditation criteria for SE undergrad programs CSEE&T 98 Proceedings Available Calls for Participation CSEE&T 99 IASTED International Conference Software Engineering'98 ICSM'98 OOPSLA Mid-Year Workshop on Education and Training Software Engineering Graduate Program Survey Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training Faculty Positions City University, London Drexel University Contact and General Information about FASE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert Letter from the Academic Editor Another two-part letter... ###################################################################### We Live In Exciting Times Wow. It just hit me. The enormity of what has been happening during the last year, and especially during the last month, in the field of software engineering. In this and future issues, you'll be hearing about new and continuing intiatives concerning all of SE (not just education and training). It appears that there are four major areas for these issues: licensing, accreditation, curriculum models, and the body of knowledge. Although work in many of these areas have been going on for several years, things began in earnest in 1997 (e.g. ABET asking IEEE for help with accreditation guidelines, the Texas State Board forming an advisory committee on software engineering)...and it looks like a lot of work will be accomplished in the next two years. It'll be interesting to see how the period 1997-2000 in SE is viewed from a historical perspective... Yes, we in software engineering live in exciting times...and challenging ones, too. I just hope I can keep up! =) ###################################################################### Welcome to All Our New Readers! Due to some advertising at the Atlanta meetings and conferences, and a posting on SEWORLD, we have 140 new subscribers this month! This means that nearly 1 in 5 of you are receiving FASE via listserv for the first time. In some ways, this issue is typical of those in the recent past: a monthly topic (although this one is relatively concise), recent news items, CFPs, faculty opening, and previews for future issues. In other ways, it's not an average issue: it's the largest issue to date, it doesn't have as much material about training as usual (partly since my co-editor has been out recovering from surgery - we miss you, Kathy!), and has a little less diversity in the number of contributors as usual. Which leads nicely into my sales pitch: we need your input, your articles, and your services as guest editors on various topics [see the "Upcoming Topics" section]. If you have an idea or an item, please let us know! Once again, welcome! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert Omission Regarding Last Month's Topic Concerning the Personal Software Process(SM), or PSP(SM), articles in the February 1998 issue of FASE (Volume 8, Number 2), the following statement should have been included in the text of the PSP(SM) section of that issue: (SM) PSP and Personal Software Process are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University. The editors of FASE sincerely regret this unintentional omission. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) This Month's Topic: Software Education In looking at the name of this month's topic, some of you may be wondering what the difference is between "software education" and "software engineering education". Software education, as defined here, means the education within an academic setting of students concerning issues related to the definition, development, and maintenance of software. This education can go on in a variety of departments, to a variety of majors, with a variety of courses, although it is likely not the optimal solution. The discussion of software education started as a result of some concern on my part of the increasing fragmentation between the various segments of the computing education community. That is, Computer Science (CS), Computer Engineering (CE), and Information Systems (IS) are often taught in different departments with little or no computing courses in common, especially between CS and IS. With software engineering (SE) about to emerge as a separate discipline, the fragmentation is likely to increase. Therefore, I proposed a "Computing Education Summit" for the Wednesday of the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), to be jointly sponsored by SIGCSE 98 and CSEE&T 98. However, in discussions with the CSEE&T Program Committee, it was decided that the focus should instead go on the education of software professionals, rather than on the entire computing education field. Thus was born the use of the term "software education", as described above, and the workshop "Software Education 2000: Computing at the Crossroads", which was sponsored by CSEE&T, and provided a special price for SIGCSE 98 attendees who wished to be at this forum. The format of the workshop was: Morning Session: Accreditation, Licensing, and Professional Issues Doris Lidtke (representing CSAB) Jerry Yeargan (representing ABET) Richard LeBlanc (representing the IEEE-ACM Software Engineering Education Task Force) Dave Dorchester (representing the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers) Afternoon Session: Software Development: Science or Engineering? Tom Hilburn (representing the Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training, discussing the Guidelines for Software Education) David Feinstein (representing IS '97) Stu Hirschfield (of Hamilton College, discussing software education in a CS/liberal arts environment) Don Bagert (wrapup, discussion, where do we go from here?) More details on the format can be found at http://www.cs.ttu.edu/dept/people/faculty_staff/bagert/se2000.htm In addition, there were several other prominent names in the audience, each of whom contributed to the discussions, including: George D. Peterson, Executive Director of ABET Doris Carver, President of IEEE-CS Joyce Currie Little, Member, Board of Directors, the Institute for Certification of Computing Professionals (ICCP) The remainder of this article will provide a short summary of each of the presentations, followed by a postscript. ___ Doris Lidtke, immediate past president of CSAB, gave an overview of her organization (their web page is at ), and their new Proposed Criteria 2000, which bears some similarity in intent to the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 (see below). In both the current CSAB criteria and Proposed Criteria 2000, many of the CS subject areas involve the development of software, and software engineering and metholdogy is one of several possible computer science advanced subjects. Neither Doris nor the ABET speaker, Jerry Yeargen, commented on any suggestions of a merger or association between ABET and CSAB, which has been rumored off-and-on for some time. However, representatives from both organizations have previously stated that under such a merger or association, it would be likely that the two organizations would have joint responsibility for the accreditation of software engineering programs. Jerry Yeargan provided some background about ABET, its Engineering Criteria 2000 (and how individual disciplines can defined some of their accreditation criteria under it), and the proposed software engineering criteria [see article elsewhere in this issue]. The ABET homepage is at . Rich LeBlanc discussed the Joint IEEE Computer Society and ACM Steering Committee for the Establishment of Software Engineering as a Profession and the current work of the new Education Task Force [see article elsewhere in this issue], for which he is a co-chair. Dr. LeBlanc indicated that one of the charges of the Task Force is to develop a software engineering undergraduate curriculum model. The presentation by Dave Dorchester, chair of the Licesning Committee of the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers, possibly generated the most discussion of any of the speakers. Dave made a presentation concerning the State Board's recent recognition of software engineering [see separate articles], and what he and the Board saw as the issues involved. One way to describe the subsequent discussion would be that there were some communication problems due to differences in terminology. One line of discussion was as follows: Dave pointed out that the creation of a piece of software, no matter how complex, does not mean that it was engineered. In response, some people in the audience argued that much of the software currently being developed is not engineered in the classical sense, but software in and of itself could be "classically" engineered, regardless of its application domain. Those two statements are not in conflict with each other, but can appear to be at first. [Some subsequent communications the week after the workshop made some of the points that were made clearer to everyone.] The above speakers all spoke in the morning, where the focus was more on issues involving current and future software engineering programs. In the afternoon, the intention was to look more at software across disciplines, which as stated the beginning of this article, was the primary motivation for the original "Computing Education Summit" concept. Tom Hilburn made a presentation on the "Guidelines for Software Education". In November 1997, the Education/Professional Issues Team of the Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training started formulating something called the "Guidelines for Software Education", and developed and internal initial partial draft. During the February meeting of that committee, it was decided to focus on an undergraduate software engineering model first, and then look at how software engineering relates to the other computing disciplines later. The objectives of the Guidelines for Software Education project are: 1. Promote acceptance of SE as a discipline among professionals in education and industry that will improve software education in all institutions at all levels. 2. Encourage greater uniformity in software education within and across disciplines. 3. Provide a coherent, structured description of software engineering concepts, knowledge, and practices that supports education curriculum development. 4. Develop a model curriculum for software engineering that can be applied in whole, or part, for the development of undergraduate software education programs. The revised set of "Software Engineering Knowledge Components", which will be used to define the curriculum models in details, as revised in the February 1998 meeting were divided into four areas: SE Core Components Recurring Components SE Foundation Components Supporting Components Work will continue on the Guidelines with a meeting of the committee in the Summer of 1998. David Feinstein discussed IS'97 (Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems This report was developed by ACM, AIS (Association for Information Systems), and AITP (Association for Information Technology Professionals - formerly DPMA). IS'97 is available in PDF form at As Dr. Feinstein discussed the details of the curriculum model, it became apparent that the software education areas of the CS and IS curriculum models are very much the same, although certainly not indentical. David also commented that although the committee did not use the term "software engineering" (for obvious political reasons), there were components of IS'97 which taught subject matter very similar to SE. Stu Hirshfield talked about the challenges of educating software professionals in a liberal arts institution such as Hamilton College, where he is the Chair of the Computer Science Department. In general, liberal arts colleges do not offer "professional" degrees (e.g. disciplines such as engineering, technology, agriculture, and human sciences, which lead to a particular more specialized job market), instead concentrating on degree programs and disciplines which provide a broader-based educational experience which provide a basis for success in a wide of fields in the workplace. In this context, computer science is a discipline that is closer to a professional program than most degrees in a liberal arts environment. ___ Workshop Postscript: It appears that many of the assumptions that inspired the development of the Software Engineering 2000 Workshop proved to be true. The major issues facing software engineering in general (and not just SEE&T) are the definition of the Body of Knowledge, Licensing, Accreditation, and Curriculum Models. It appears that a significant amount of work is going to done in these areas in the next 2-3 years. The future of the generalized "software education" concept is less apparent, however. From discussions during and after the workshop, as well as during the Working Group on SEE&T meeting, it is apparent that the disciplines of CS, CE, IS, and SE all have a common core, which needs to be better defined and more effectively implemented across higher education institutions. If it will happen, and how, is unclear at this point; the Guidelines for Software Education may or may not turn out to be the appropriate vehicle. As I've said before, it's both an exciting and an extremely challenging time for software education. _____ Acknowledgments: I would like to thank all of the workshop presenters for doing such a wonderful job in making "Software Education 2000" such a big success. [Editor's Note: More about other computing education events in Atlanta during the period from 21 February to 1 March will be in the next issue of FASE.] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Pete Knoke, Guest Editor (ffpjk@aurora.alaska.edu) Next Month's Topic: Software Law in Education and Training I'm interested in contributions which discuss areas that software engineering students or practicing software engineers ought to know something about in order to avoid trouble. These areas include the classic areas of intellectual property law, contract law, and tort law (all as applied to the software engineering domain). Other areas of interest are privacy, encryption, and AI related laws. Internet law is now a fast growing and confusing field. Bill Gates apparently needs to learn something about anti-trust and monopoly-related law (is he a practicing software engineer?). I'm particularly interested in contributions/views on these subjects from an outside-the-US perspective. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) 100th Issue (May 1998) Topic - FASE: Past and Future The May 1998 issue of FASE will be its 100th. The topic for that issue is titled "FASE: Past and Future". Besides looking at some of the highlights of the first 100 issues of FASE, this article will look at the possibilities and predictions for the future. Also, the past and potential futures of publication in the software engineering education and training field will also be examined. I want to hear from you on these subjects. Please send your reminisces, historical facts, predictions, and opinion to me at bagert@ttu.edu by May 8. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Other Upcoming topics June 1998: Software Metrics Education and Training Guest Editor: Susan Mengel, Texas Tech University mengel@ttu.edu July 1998: Licensing of Professional Engineers in SE Editor: Don Bagert, Texas Tech University bagert@ttu.edu Aug 1998: To be scheduled Sept 1998: Graduate SE Program Survey Results and Evaluation Guest Editor: Pete Knoke, University of Alaska Fairbanks ffpjk@aurora.alaska.edu Oct 1998: SEE&T Outside of the U.S. Guest Editor: Michael Ryan, Dublin City University mryan@compapp.dcu.ie TBD: Software Engineering Ethics Education and Training Guest Editor: Don Gotterbarn, East Tennesse State gotterba@etsu.edu All dates are subject to change. For more information about a particular issue's topic, please contact the corresponding guest editor. Here are some of the other topics planned for future issues: * Accreditation * Curriculum Models * Distance Learning * Object Technology Education and Training * Software Survivability Education * Student Team Projects Please send any suggestions for future topics to bagert@ttu.edu. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Departments ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Formatting of FASE Those of you that have been subscribing to FASE these past several issues are aware that we have been having a few formatting glitches. Hopefully, problems with line length and unreadable characters will be a thing of the past. I have written something called a "program" which will help follow the new formatting guidelines which I have set ;) (Those guidelines will be at the end of each issue under "Contact and General Information about FASE".) However, that doesn't guarantee that any control characters won't pop up in the sending and delivery, but at least the original text file for the issue (which will be on the FASE web page, as usual) will be okay. A couple of people have also suggested splitting the issue into two parts, usually because of limitations of their mailing software. However, it appears that most people prefer the issue in just one message. [Of course, maybe things will change; this is the largest issue of FASE yet!] I would like to find out if there is enough interest to have a second list which receives the issues in two parts instead of one. Please email me at bagert@ttu.edu if interested; if I get enough response, I'll make a second list. Finally, I have put any investigation of the "digest format" on hold until I am sure that the other formatting problems are under control. However, don't be surprised if we try an issue that way before the end of the year... (One more thing: I haven't forgotten about an HTML as well as an ASCII version. Someday...) ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) FASE-TALK and Breaking News Those of you that are new may not be aware of FASE-TALK. Let me quote from the ""Contact and General Information about FASE" section at the end of each issue: "...what if you have something that you want to share with everyone else, before the next issue? For more real-time discussion, there is the FASE-TALK discussion list...Please try to limit FASE-TALK to discussion items related to software engineering education and training; CFPs and other such items can still be submitted to the editor for inclusion into FASE. Anyone that belongs to the FASE-TALK mailing list can post to it." Starting this past month, the editors have also started using FASE-TALK for "breaking news" such as the Texas State Board Licensing Decision [see separate article] i.e. stories that we feel that you would want to hear about before the next issue of FASE comes out. (We expect to do this sparingly, though.) I would really like to encourage you to subscribe to FASE-TALK; we currently only have 33 of the 793 FASE readers there! [Subscription information is at the end of each issue.] ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Back Issues of FASE Needed As part of the preparations for the 100th issue in May [see separate article], I am trying to get a hold of all issues from Volumes 1-6 of FASE, which are not currently on the FASE web page. (Note: Yes, I am aware that these issues - except for one - used to be on the FASE homepage that used to exist before the one at Texas Tech appeared last fall. I still need some issues.) I need all of Volumes 1 (1991) and 2 (1992): Volume 1, Number 1 (there was only one issue that first year) Volume 2, Numbers 1-9 I have all of Volumes 3-6 (1993-1996), except the following: Volume 3, Number 4 (18 October 1993; see note below) Volume 5, Number 16 Volume 6, Number 19 (the last issue before the hiatus) Note: Volume 3, Number 4 was actually mistitled Volume 3, Number 5. The real Volume 3, Number 5 issued an apology for the mistake at the beginning of the issue. One issue that I HAVE been able to obtain is the last issue of Volume 3, which was Number 9. Why is that special? Well, the old FASE archive only went up to Number 8 for that year...making it a "lost" issue of FASE! Any help that you can give in locating old issues would be greatly appreciated. Please send any information to me at bagert@ttu.edu. Thanks! ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Countries with Subscribers to FASE There are currently there are 793 people from 48 countries and provinces (up from 650 and 44, respectively, last September) that are subscribing to FASE, according to internet domain codes: Argentina Australia Austria Bahrain Belgium Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Canada China Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, South Latvia Lithuania Macau Madagascar Malaysia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Tunisia Turkey United Kingdom United States Yugoslavia [Editor's note: Yes, I realize the various relationships that the People's Republic of China has with Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. No international incidents, please!] If I have left off your country, please let me know. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ News Items ###################################################################### Licensing Issues ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Texas State Board of Professional Engineers Officially Recognizes Software Engineering for Licensing Purposes [Editor Note: This is a section of an email sent to many listservs, including FASE-TALK (as breaking news), during the last week of February and first week of March. A postscript follows.] This message recently arrived from Dave Dorchester, chair of the Licensing Committee of the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers, concerning their meeting of 18 February 1998. (The Board is empowered by the State of Texas to regulate the licensing of professional engineers within its boundaries.) "At today's State Board meeting the Board unanimously voted to approve the following statement: 'The Board officially recognizes the discipline of Software Engineering as having a sufficicently distinct knowledge base to allow licensing for engineers experienced in that knowledge base. Further the Board will move forward with the development of rules to implement this intent, and support all state and national efforts to develop accredited educational programs and professional examinations.' "Under state rules this is now a proposal that will be published in the Texas Register for public comment and at the June meeting can be voted on for final approval." What this means is that unless something very unusual happens between now and June, Texas will become the first state in the U.S. to officially recognize software engineering as a professional engineering discipline, and the first to license professional engineers in the area of software engineering. Articles concerning previous meetings of Texas State Board committees that addressed the issue of software engineering can be found in the December 1997 and January 1998 issues of the FASE electronic newsletter (http://www.cs.ttu.edu/fase). [Postscript: The next meeting of the software engineering advisory committee to the State Board will be at the Board office in Austin on 14 April. The advisory committee members are: Donald J. Bagert, Texas Tech University, Associate Professor of Computer Science Gerald Burnham, UT Dallas, Associate Dean of Engineering Dennis Frailey, Raytheon TI Systems, Senior Software Technologist and Southern Methodist University, Adjunct Professor of Computer Science and Engineering Otto M Friedrich, Jr., U. of Texas at Austin, Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering William M. Marcy, Associate Dean of Research and Chairperson of Computer Science, College of Engineering, Texas Tech University David Rentschler, Tandem Computers, Quality Engineering The State Board's web page is at http://www.main.org/peboard, and the "The State Of Texas Engineering Practice Act and Rules Concerning the Practice of Engineering and Professional Engineering Licensing" is under http://www.main.org/peboard/lwru4.htm. On 13 March 1998, the State Board met and voted approval to some amendments of Board Rule 131.52, which will also be published in the Texas Register for public comment and at the June meeting can be voted on for final approval. (g) Applicants shall indicate a primary branch of engineering under which experience has been gained. Applicants seeking permission to take the Principles and Practice of Engineering examination shall indicate a primary branch for which there is an available National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) examination, other Board approved examination, or for which the Board will issue a license under applicable waiver rules. The branches and their corresponding code are: [The first 15 disciplines are the same as before] (16) (Z) software These changes are intended to allow for the State Board to develop its own Principles and Practice of Engineering examination for software engineering until an NCEES examination is created and approved. (Some members of the State Board have indicated that the Software Engineering Advisory Committee will likely be asked to take the lead on writing the initial exam.) The "applicable waiver rules" are stated elsewhere in the Rules, and no change in those rules are proposed. An article concerning the reaction to the original announcement follows.] ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Reaction to Texas State Board's Vote, and Some Q&A The news of the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers' vote recognizing software engineering as an engineering discipline [see previous article] was first announced at CSEE&T 98, SIGCSE 98, and on the Internet during the week of February 23. Since then, there has been, and undoubtedly will be, a great deal of discussion - sometimes heated - on this issue. Messages have come from China, Australia, Canada, Puerto Rico, and a number of U.S. states. The best of the messages have been those that have pointed out some of the implementation problems, due to the uniqueness of software as a non-physical entity, and because of the current state of the industry. As one example, Valerie Barr forwarded this message from one of her students, for possible inclusion in FASE: "An interesting, maybe scary thing about the certification of software engineers is that software is not a static thing. Engineers who are certified for bridges can be sued if they design a bridge that is unsafe and is unstable. If a software engineer designs some piece of software and it becomes unstable due to changes in the underlying hardware or software (OS, etc), or even if the software is used improperly, then what will happen to the software engineer. If the bridge fails while you cross it then, lawsuit. "As of now there is not one piece of software that is a hundred percent operational 100% of the time. So does this mean that all of a sudden there will be a plethora of law suits involving software engineers and what will that do to the field? "I don't know what kind of stipulation you can put in a contract about the stability, accuracy, and operationability of a software product. By the current state of the industry software is evolving continuously and a piece of software may not stay stable in the new environment. you can always have the software guaranteed, I think that is what this event is leading to, for only a particular specific environment. But that limits its life and scope to a very short time span. "There is no doubt that this event will further software engineering but it may throw it for a loop." _____ Here are questions from some of the other messages I received, with some answers attempted by me: [Please note that these answers are my own, and are not necessarily those of the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers, or any of its committees, including the Software Engineering Advisory Committee.] Q: "Does anyone know if the Texas proposal will ultimately require SE programs in the state to be administered specifically in colleges of engineering?" A: My understanding is that ABET does not require engineering disciplines that it accredits to be in colleges of engineering. So the answer is no. Q: "Have [the State Board members] yet published their requirements for someone to be licensed as a Software Engineer?" A: Not yet, beyond the following defintion: "Software engineering is the analysis, design, implementation and assurance of software as a part of a system produced by the practice of professional engineering." It should be noted that final approval by the Board (after four months of public comment) is still pending, and more meetings between the State Board and its Software Engineering Advisory Committee are planned before any requirements are published. Q: "Will there be a grandfather clause that recognizes academic credentials as well as work experience? Will there be additional qualification or testing of those in the field with college degrees in Software Engineering?" A: There have always been means for academics and professionals to obtain professional engineering license in some cases, even without a degree from an accredited engineering program. I would suggest checking the Texas State Board page for details. Q: "General engineering topics, i.e. statics and dynamics, are not taken in the CS programs which are really prerequisites to SE understanding." A: I would suggest look at the proposed SE accreditation guidelines (see article elsewhere in this issue), and ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 . Under EC 2000, there is more flexibility among disciplines in defining what courses and subjects are needed within a particular engineering discipline. Q: "When I took the test, I had to answer questions in all phases of engineering, not just my own discipline. Are you proposing that each branch of engineering be liscensed separately? Or, are you proposing the software engineering be handled different for all the other engineers?" A: I would take a look at the web page for the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying . Besides the General Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, there are discipline-specific FE exams in chemical, civil, electrical (and computer), industrial, and mechanical engineering. To not eventually have a software engineering FE exam would itself mean that it would be "handled different". Q: "Whose idea it was to start licensing Software Engineers?... One day, out of the blue, some genius figures we need new controls and guarantees, and, 'Bingo!', a new regulation appears." A: The regulations concerning who in the state can call themselves engineers of any type (not just software engineers) have been on the books long before this. Once again, I would suggest checking the Texas State Board page for information concerning this. Q: "Most of the Software Engineers I work with here have degrees in other disciples, and some have no degree -- just professional experience." A: The State of Texas is licensing professional engineers for this very reason - they don't want anyone to be able themselves an engineer without the proper qualifications. Q: "I would like to know what [agency] is giving you guys any authority to develop anything." A: This is an important question. The Texas State Board came to the individuals that comprise the advisory committee, and asked us to come and help them consider the possibility of licensing software engineers as PEs, and later to help them come up with appropriate guidelines. Furthermore, the Board has long been given the statutory authority to do so by the Texas State Legislature. Q: "This should have all eyes on Texas for a while to see how it plays out." A: Most definitely! ____ Finally, two things. First, Thanks to Dennis Frailey, who came up with the Q&A idea, and who will be coming up with a more comprehensive list of questions and comments (which may show up in FASE). Second, "a more comprehensive list" is obviously needed since the answers to many of the questions on people minds are still being formulated or considered. FASE will be continuing to keep you informed of what's going on, and I'm sure that the discussion will continue for quite some time to come. Please feel free to contact me at bagert@ttu.edu for any comments or questions. ###################################################################### Accreditation Issues ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) via Gerald Engel IEEE Submits Proposed SE Program Criteria to ABET The August 1997 issue of FASE previously reported that ABET had requested from IEEE some guidance on formulating criteria for the accreditation of software engineering programs. The program criteria that was subsequently formulated by the IEEE Accreditation Policy Committee will be, if approved by ABET, applied to software engineering programs in conjunction with the general criteria in the new ABET Engineering Criteria (EC) 2000 that are applicable to all engineering programs. The IEEE Educational Activities Board (EAB) met on 14 February 1998 and recommended the draft program criteria for approval and submission by IEEE to the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission for consideration at its July 1998 meeting. If approved by ABET at that time, the criteria for software engineering programs will become effective on 1 January 1999, and be available for evaluation of programs under this criteria starting in Fall 1999. [The Proposed Program Criteria below was passed out by Gerald Engel to the audience at the SIGCSE Birds-of-a-Feather session titled "Guidelines for Software Education: An Overview" on 26 February 1998.] DRAFT PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERING AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS SUBMITTED BY THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INCORPORATED FEBRUARY 5, 1997 (MAY 16; DECEMBER 9; DECEMBER 19; JANUARY 17, 1998) These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include software or similar modifiers in their titles. Curriculum The curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering and computer science topics implied by the title and objectives of the program. Graduates must demonstrate the ability to analyze, design, verify, validate, implement, apply, and maintain software systems. Graduates must demonstrate the ability to apply appropriately discrete mathematics, probability and statistics, and relevant topics in computer and management sciences to complex software systems. ###################################################################### From: Laurie Werth JTF draft accreditation criteria for SE undergrad programs As part of the efforts of the Joint Steering Committee of the IEEE Computer Society/ACM For the Establishment of Software Engineering as a Profession, an Education Task Force has been established. Members of the Task Force are as follow: Bruce H. Barnes, IEEE/CS Representative Gerald L. Engel, IEEE/CS Co-Chair Martin L. Griss, ACM Representative Richard LeBlanc, ACM Co-Chair Tony Wasserman, ACM Representative Laurie Werth, IEEE/CS Representative This Task Force was charged with the development of program in Software Engineering Education based on the initial work of the Task Force on the Body of Software Engineering Knowledge (March 27, 1997) The first effort has been the development of draft accreditation criteria for undergraduate programs in software engineering. The draft criteria follows. Comments and suggestions are solicited regarding these criteria, and should be directed to the following address: Dr. Bruce H. Barnes 40692 Manor House Road Leesburg VA 20175 bhbarnes@erols.com To be considered at the next meeting of the Task Force, comments should be received by April 15, 1998. It is anticipated that following agreement on accreditation criteria, model curricula for the field will be developed. Based on the interim report of the Task Force on the Body of Software Engineering Knowledge, it is also anticipated that similar efforts in the area of software engineering technology, graduate programs, and continuing education programs will be developed. Gerald L. Engel Richard LeBlanc Co-Chairs, Software Engineering Education Task Force [Editor's Note: The proposed criteria below was developed independently of the criteria presented in the previous article.] DRAFT 2/1/98 ACCREDITATION CRITERIA FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERING FACULTY REQUIREMENTS The quality of the program is primarily dependent on the faculty. There must be enough faculty to provide course offerings that allow the students to complete the program in a timely manner, and provide direction and guidance to the students and to student teams. The interests and qualifications of the faculty must be sufficient to both teach the necessary courses, and to plan and modify the curriculum. The faculty must be able to effectively interact with software practitioners. Some faculty members should have substantial practical software engineering experience. Teaching loads must be reasonable, and consistent with the program objectives, and the institutional expectations for research and professional development. Loads should also be consistent with other disciplines requiring significant project and laboratory work. Mechanism must exist to insure the professional growth and development of the faculty, as scholars, as educators, and as software practitioners. CURRICULUM Software engineering encompasses theory, technology, practice and application of software in computer-based systems. The curriculum integrates technical requirements with general education requirements and electives to prepare the student for a professional career in the field, for further study, and for functioning in modern society. The program must include approximately equal segments in software engineering, in computer science and engineering, in appropriate supporting areas, and in advanced materials. This material should cover about three-quarters of the overall academic program, with the remainder to include institutional requirements and electives. The software engineering portion of the program must include the areas of software architecture, system performance, testing and quality assurance, requirements engineering, management of software processes, selection and use of software tools and components, computer and human interaction, and documentation. Substantial design work must be included at this level, and the students must be exposed to a variety of languages and systems. Ethical, social, legal, economic and safety issues must be addressed at this level, and reenforced in subsequent work, as must the appropriate use of software engineering standards. The computer science portion of the program must include the areas of algorithms, computer architecture, databases, programming languages, and operating systems. Included in the appropriate supporting areas are communications (oral, written, listening) including the abilities to work in teams, and mathematics focusing primarily on discrete mathematics and probability and statistics. The advanced portion is designed to meet the objectives of the program by providing depth in one or more areas. This part of the program may incorporate further study in the topics indicated above, may involve work in additional areas of theory or technology, and should include work in one or more significant application domains. The program must include components of software development involving all aspects of the software life cycle, including functioning in a realistic team environment. This aspect should be integrated throughout the program, and must include a meaningful major project which integrates most of the other aspects of the curriculum. LABORATORY AND COMPUTING RESOURCES The program requires substantial laboratory and computing resources for class work, individual projects, and team projects. These resources will normally involve a blend of computing facilities including workstations and communication facilities as well as resources for bulk data storage and printing. Sufficient facilities must be available so that all students have adequate and reasonable access to the appropriate system for each course, and for communicating with other students and faculty. Adequate facilities must also exist to support the work of the faculty. In addition to access to a variety of languages, operating systems, and database systems, it is essential to have access to commercial tools supporting the software lifecycle. Appropriate licensing arrangements are necessary to insure that students have access to these resources. In addition to software laboratories which include clusters of computers and licensed software, there are needs for meeting space to support team projects. Support services are required at a variety of levels including hardware maintenance, programming, software maintenance, systems management, documentation, and instructional training. The number of support staff with primary responsibility to the program must be consistent with the stated objectives of the program. A functioning laboratory plan addressing hardware and software development, acquisition, management, and maintenance must be present. STUDENTS The quality of a program is dependent on the quality of the students, as well as the faculty and institutional resources. There must be established standards and procedures to insure that graduates of the program have met both the requirements and the objectives of the programs so that they have the requisite qualifications to function effectively as software practitioners. In addition, there must be sufficient students enrolled in the program to insure that realistic projects and activities can be included. It is the responsibility of the faculty to monitor the progress of the students. Appropriate metrics, consistent with the institutional mission and program objectives, must exist to guide students toward completion of the program in a reasonable period of time, and to measure the success of the graduates in meeting the program objectives. The advisory function of the faculty must be recognized by the institution and must be given appropriate administrative support. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT A. The organizational structure, fiscal policies, and instructional philosophy of an institution must reasonable assure that an accredited program will retain its strength throughout the period of accreditation. Areas of institutional support that are considered especially important include the following: 1. Faculty Support Many factors affect faculty recruitment and retention. Sabbatical and other leave programs, reasonable teaching loads, and competitive salaries are important in attracting and retaining faculty of high quality. There must be sufficient support to allow faculty members to attend national technical meetings with sufficient frequency to maintain competence as teachers, scholars and practitioners. There must also be support and recognition of scholarly activities. 2. Administration All levels of administration are relevant to the program. Positive, constructive leadership at the college/school level and in the unit that administers the program are especially important in maintaining the program quality. Adequate time must be assigned for the administration of the program. Upper levels of administration must provide the program with the resources and atmosphere to function effectively with the rest of the institution. 3. Library The library that serves the software engineering program must be adequately staffed with professional librarians and support personnel. Sufficient financial support must be provided to acquire and maintain an adequate technical collection and an appropriate non-technical collection. The technical collection must include up-to-date textbooks, reference works, and appropriate publications of professional and research organizations. The collection should also include a representative number of trade publications. 4. Support Services The institution must provide modern office equipment such as word processors and duplicating equipment. In addition, secretarial support must be consistent with the type of program and level of scholarly and practitioner activity. 5. Laboratory and Computing Support The institution must acquire and maintain adequate laboratory equipment including computing equipment, and associated support personnel. B. Assessment of Program Effectiveness The effectiveness of the program must be evaluated on a regular basis. This evaluation must be documented, and information gained through this activity should be seriously considered as improvements are made in the program. Mechanisms for this purpose must include an advisory board of active software practitioners which meets with the program participants at regular intervals, and should include monitoring of student placement experience, and tracking the professional development of students. ###################################################################### From: Mike McCracken via Nancy Mead CSEE&T 98 Proceedings Available Copies of the 1998 CSEE&T Proceedings can be purchased from Mike McCracken at Georgia Tech (mike@cc.gatech.edu) for $50. We had some excellent papers and talks this year. If you were unable to make the conference, you'll be glad to have the proceedings. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Calls for Participation ###################################################################### From: Hossein Saiedian CSEE&T 99 CALL FOR PAPERS 12th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training March 22-24 1999 *** New Orleans, LA, USA Sponsored by IEEE Computer Society Please join a host of international educators and trainers in the software engineering discipline for the primary conference on education and training of professional software developers. The 12th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T '99) continues a tradition of offering direction, promoting innovation and collaboration, and stimulating new instructional approaches to software engineering education and training. CSEE&T is the only conference devoted entirely to improvement in software engineering education and training. CSEE&T '99 will focus on a different theme each day. The themes are as follows: 1. Training Curricula and Distance Education 2. Professional Issues (e.g., Accreditation, Licensing, Ethics) 3. Undergraduate and Graduate Curricula Submissions. You are invited to submit research papers, experience reports, proposals for panel discussions and tutorials, and position statements for workshops in the above and other areas of software engineering education and training. You are also invited to suggest innovative topics for informal meetings and birds-of-a-feather sessions. Accepted contributions will appear in the conference proceedings published by the IEEE Computer Society Press. Selected papers and experience reports will be published in a special issue of the Journal of Systems and Software (published by Elsevier Science). The 1999 conference will coordinate and synchronize its schedules with the ACM's SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science Education which will be held in New Orleans. Joint workshops are planned to provide an opportunity for both software engineers and computer scientists to exchange ideas on how their activities can be more effectively integrated. For additional details, please contact the Program Chair or see the web address. Conference and Program Chairs * Conference Chair: Hossein Saiedian, University of Nebraska at Omaha hossein@cs.unomaha.edu * Program Chair: Don Bagert, Texas Tech University, bagert@ttu.edu * Steering Committee Don Bagert, Texas Tech University David Budgen, Keele University Neal Coulter, Florida Atlantic University Dennis Frailey Texas Instruments Michael Lutz, Rochester Institute of Technology Mike McCracken, Georgia Tech Nancy Mead, Software Engineering Institute Michael Ryan, Dublin City University Hossein Saiedian, University of Nebraska at Omaha * Tutorials/Workshops Chair: Tom Hilburn, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, hilburn@db.erau.edu * Panels Chair: David Umphress, Seattle University umphress@seattleu.edu * Birds-of-a-Feather Coordinator: Susan A. Mengel, Texas Tech University mengel@ttu.edu * Training Coordinator: Kathy Beckman, Computer Data Systems, Inc. kathy.beckman@cdsi.com * Submission Due Date Submission due date: September 15, 1998. Additional and updated details will be made available at: http://cs.unomaha.edu/CSEET99 ###################################################################### IASTED International Conference Software Engineering'98 CALL FOR PAPERS IASTED International Conference Software Engineering October 28-31, 1998 Las Vegas, USA Sponsor: The International Association of Science and Technology for Development - IASTED Location: Las Vegas, USA Purpose: This conference will act as an international forum for scientists and engineers involved in the research, analysis and development of software engineering. The conference will include contributed papers and tutorials covering a wide range of topics. The keynote address will be given by Dr. Dale Karolak, Engineering Director, TRW Automotive Electronics. Dr. Karolak will be talking on "Shifting Paradigms in Software Engineering Management". Scope Topics relevant to SE'98 include, but are not limited to, the following: Cryptography and Computer Security Development of Distributed Software Development of Simulation Software Engineering Object-Oriented Software for Reuse Managing the Software Process Multimedia Software Engineering Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Object-Oriented Databases Object-Oriented Programming Languages Object-Oriented Programming Object-Oriented Software Metrics Testing Object-Oriented Software Metrics Testing Object-Oriented Software Performance Engineering of Software Systems Real-Time Software Systems Software Engineering and CASE Software Metrics and Models Software Testing Structured Rapid Prototyping Graphical User Interface Design Techniques Visual Modeling Techniques Visual Programming General Chair Dr. Sung Y. Shin, South Dakota State University, USA Program Chair Dr. Roger Y. Lee, Central Michigan University, USA Tutorial Chair Dr. Narayan Debnath, Winona State University, USA Steering Committee N. Debnath Winona State University, USA D. Karolak TRW Automotive Electronics, USA R.Y. Lee Central Michigan University, USA W.E. Leigh University of Central Florida, USA S.Y. Shin South Dakota State University, USA L.A. Stein Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA J. Tomayko Carnegie Mellon University, USA International Program Committee K. Akingbehin Towson State University, USA M.L. Barrett East Tennessee State University, USA P.O. Bobbie Florida A&M University, USA C. Chen Florida International University, USA C.-C. Chiang Viasoft Inc., USA V. Ciric Faculty of Organization Science, Yugoslavia H.K. Dai Indiana University/Purdue University-Fort Wayne, USA J. Dujmovic San Francisco State University, USA W. Golubski University of Siegen, Germany J. Han Monash University, Australia H.M. Hays South East Missouri State University, USA F.A. Henskens University of Newcastle, Australia A. Ibrahim R&D Cons. & Training Tech. Inc., USA H.J. Kim ETRI, South Korea G.-H. Kwon Kyonggi University, South Korea W. Lam University of Hertfordshire, U.K. J. Lee University of Aizu, Japan N. Moon Ewha University, Korea M. Picavet University of Lille, France R. Uzal Univ. Nacional de San Luis, Argentina S. Valenti University of Ancona, Italy S.-I. Wu California State University-San Marcos, USA C. Xu Georgia Southern University, USA M. Yaacob University of Malaya, Malaysia C. Zhang California State University, USA Submission of Papers Papers are solicited that describe basic or applied research on any of the above topics. Papers will be selected based on their originality, timeliness, significance, relevance, and clarity of presentation. Only papers that have not been submitted to any other conference or publication will be considered. The International Program Committee will decide whether or not the papers are accepted. Accepted and presented papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Four copies of a full paper (not to exceed 15 double-spaced pages including figures, tables and references) should reach the Program Chair on or before May 23, 1998 at the following address: Dr. Roger Y. Lee Department of Computer Science Central Michigan University Mt. Pleasant, MI USA 48859 Phone: (517) 774-3811 Fax: (517) 774-3728 E-mail: lee@cps.cmich.edu Page one of the manuscript should include the article title, name(s), and address (including e-mail address) of the author(s). Include the article title, a brief abstract, a set of key words and text as page two. Submissions should also include the full name, affiliation, postal address, telephone number, fax number and email address of the corresponding author. Submission of Tutorials Anyone wishing to organize a half-day (3 hour) tutorial in connection with this conference should submit four copies of a full proposal (2-3 pages) to the Tutorial Chair at the following address: Dr. Narayan C. Debnath Department of Computer Science Winona State University Winona, MN USA 55987 Phone: (507) 457-5261 Fax: (507) 457-5681 E-mail: debnath@vax2.winona.msus.edu The tutorial proposal should include the title, instructor's name, topics covered, length (hours) of the tutorial, targeted audience, equipment needed, number of participants, and instructor's biography. The tutorial proposal should clearly indicate the background knowledge expected of the participants, the objectives and the time allocation for major course topics. Qualifications of the instructor(s) must also be included. Special Session on Formal Methods in Software Engineering: Methods, Techniques and Applications Please send three copies of the papers for this session to: Dr. Cui Zhang, Dept. of Computer Science, California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819-6021, USA. The papers must be received by May 23, 1998. For further information or to be placed on the mailing list, please contact: IASTED Secretariat, SE'98 1811 West Katella Avenue, Suite 101 Anaheim, CA USA 92804 Tel: 714-778-3230 Fax: 714-778-5463 Email: iasted@iasted.com Web Site: www.iasted.com Important Dates Submission of Abstracts and Tutorials - May 23, 1998 Notification of Acceptance - July 10, 1998 Registration and Camera-read Manuscripts due - August 16, 1998 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sal Valenti Computer Science Dept. E-mail: valenti@inform.unian.it University of Ancona Voice: +39 71 2204824 Fax: +39 71 2204474 60131 Ancona - Italy "Great is the truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view is silence about truth" - A. Huxley - Foreword to Brave New World ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ###################################################################### From: Keith Gallagher ICSM'98 Call for Papers http://www.cs.loyola.edu/~icsm 1998 International Conference on Software Maintenance - ICSM'98 in Metropolitan Washington, D.C. USA November 16th-20th, 1998 ICSM'98 Theme: COTS Application and Component-Based Maintenance As the next century approaches, systems are increasingly composed of systems. Emerging techniques such as commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software packages, Mega-Reuse and COTS components will alter the practices of software maintainers. While traditional maintenance has, in large part, been a microcosm of development practices, COTS software package life cycles bring a different set of challenges for the maintenance community. COTS packages have life cycles for both their vendor and the organizations that purchase them for integration into their applications development. COTS components and applications increase the uncertainties that software maintainers face. Adding to the challenge, latent Year 2000 (Y2K) problems are likely to reverberate as existing systems are transitions into the next century. Maintaining software systems in the 21st Century world of component-based software engineering will be challenging and exciting. ICSM'98 will be a forum for exploring the implications of COTS applications, component-based maintenance, Y2K problems, and more. Suggested Topics Papers related, but not limited, to the following topics are invited. * Software system migration and conversion * COTS application maintenance * Component-based software maintenance * Y2K conversion and testing * Software modernization * Software reengineering and restructuring * Software maintenance measurement * Empirical studies of maintenance activities * Software documentation and standards * Process modeling and assessment * Software change and impact analysis * Formal methods in maintenance * Program comprehension * Software change verification and validation * Software maintenance testing * Designing for ease of software evolution Scope Software system maintenance extends from correction of code to adaptation, and enhancement of systems, designs, and architectures. ICSM'98 will provide a forum for discussing the latest techniques, tools, and methodologies that support software maintenance and its ramifications. ICSM'98 will provide an international forum for researchers, developers and users interested in software maintenance issues. Participants will include practitioners and researchers from industry, academia, and government. Submissions Submit five (5) copies of papers and proposals to the appropriate chair by March 27, 1998. Paper copies are required. Electronic submissions will not be accepted. a. Research Papers and Experience Reports Research papers will be evaluated for originality, significance, soundness, clarity and relevance to the conference theme or other software maintenance topics. Experience reports should describe practical experiences with software maintenance methods, models, processes, technologies or tools, and should emphasize outcomes, insights gained, and lessons learned. Submit five (5) copies of research papers or experience reports to one of the Program Co-chairs. Papers should be 2,000-5,000 words, in English, should include a short abstract of 250 words or less with a list of keywords, and be clearly marked "Research Paper" or "Experience Report". The first page should include title, all authors' names, and contact information for the lead author (address, phone, fax, email). b. Panels Panel discussions on topics of current interest should not only be informative, but also facilitate the lively interchange of ideas. Panelists should have agreed to participate before the submission of the proposal. Submit five (5) copies of proposals to one of the Program Co-chairs. Panel proposals should include a title, panel chair's name, panelists' names, a brief description of the topic, and supporting rationale. c. Industry Track Industry track presentations should summarize industry experiences with practical applications of software maintenance principles. Industry track proposals will be evaluated for their applicability and relevance to the software maintenance practitioners. Submit five (5) copies of proposals to one of the Industry Track Co-chairs. Industry track proposals should include a one-page abstract and an outline of the presentation. d. Tutorials Tutorials should present software maintenance topics of interest to practitioners. Tutorials may be full-day or half-day in length. Submit five (5) copies of the proposals to Tutorials Chair. Proposals for tutorials should be approximately three (3) pages and should include the title, the instructor's name, the tutorial objectives, outline of the material (about 10 points), target audience, prerequisites, description of past experience with the tutorial, and instructor's credentials. e. Vendor Exhibits and Tools Fair Vendors may exhibit tools, publications, and related products to help attendees apply software maintenance techniques and technologies. Submit five (5) copies of proposals to Tools Chair. Proposals should include a 1 to 2 page description of the items to be exhibited, space required, hardware platform required, and any other exhibition requirements. Clearly distinguish proposals for "Research Prototype" from "Vendor Tool". Conference Location The conference will be held in suburban Washington, D.C., USA, a major center for government agencies, industry, and universities. The conference venue will be the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Bethesda, Maryland, which is accessible from interstate highways or the Metro subway. There is a convenient subway stop beneath the hotel with elevator access. Washington, D.C. is served by three major international airports. The Washington area also offers many extraordinary museums, parks, and other attractions for visitors. ICSM'98 will be held in conjunction with the Metrics98 conference (Nov. 20-21) and the Workshop on Empirical Studies on Software Maintenance - WESS98 (Nov. 16). Important Dates Submission deadline: March 27, 1998 Acceptance notification: June 15, 1998 Final version due: August 14, 1998 Web Site Information on ICSM'98 can be obtained at http://www.cs.loyola.edu/~icsm Sponsors IEEE Computer Society, Technical Council on Software Engineering (TCSE) General Chair Shawn A. Bohner META Group, Software Engineering Productivity Strategies Box 16532 Washington, DC 20041 USA +1 703 860 6600 Voice +1 703 860 6611 FAX s.bohner@computer.org Program Co-Chairs Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar Empirical Software Engineering Laboratory Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering Florida Atlantic University 777 West Glades Road Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA +1 561 297 3994 Voice +1 561 297 2800 FAX taghi@cse.fau.edu Keith Bennett Department of Computer Science Centre for Software Maintenance University of Durham South Road Durham DH1 3LE, UK +44 91 374 2632 Voice +44 91 374 2560 FAX Keith.Bennett@durham.ac.uk Industry Track Chairs Malcom Slovin META Group, Inc. 1950 Roland Clarke Place Suite 300 Reston, VA. 20191 +1 703 860 6279 Voice +1 703 860 6611 FAX Malcolm.Slovin@metagroup.com Jeffrey Voas Reliable Software Technologies Corp. 21515 Ridgetop Circle, #250 Sterling, VA 20166 +1 703 404 9293 Voice +1 703 404 9295 FAX jmvoas@rstcorp.com Tutorial Chair Lionel Briand Fraunhofer IESE Sauerwiesen 6 Kaiserslautern, D-67661, Germany +49 (0)6301707251 Voice +49 (0)6301707202 FAX briand@iese.fhg.de Tools Chair Bill Farr Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division Mailstop B10 17320 Dahlgren Road Dahlgren, VA 22448 +1 540 653 8388 Voice +1 540 653 1952 FAX wfarr@nswc.navy.mil Publicity Chair Keith B. Gallagher Computer Science Department Loyola Collage in Maryland 4501 N. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21210 +1 410 617 2854 Voice +1 410 617 2157 FAX kbg@cs.loyola.edu Local Arrangements Chair Mike Schrank MITRE CORPORATION 1820 DOLLEY MADISON BLVD M.S. W624 McLean, VA 22102-3481 +1 703-883-5784 Voice +1 703-883-1339 FAX MSCHRANK@MITRE.ORG Program Committee (tentative) William Agresti, NSF (USA) Giuliano Antoniol, IRST (Italy) Noureddine Belkhatir, LSR IMAG, France Paolo Benedusi, CRIAI, Italy Keith Bennett, University of Durham (UK) Shawn Bohner, META Group (USA) Cornelia Boldyreff, University of Durham, UK Steven Bradley, University of Durham, UK Pearl Brereton, University of Keele, UK Lionel Briand, Fraunhofer IESE (Germany) Gianluigi Caldiera, University of Maryland, College Park (USA) Gerardo Canfora, University of Salerno (Italy) Ned Chapin, InfoSci Inc. (USA) Roberto Ciampoli, Olivetti Information Services (Italy) Aniello Cimitile, University of Naples (Italy) Ugo DeCarlini, University of Naples, Italy Khaled El Emam, Fraunhofer IESE (Germany) William Farr, Naval Surface Warfare Center (USA) Robert France, Florida Atlantic University (USA) Keith Brian Gallagher, Loyola College (USA) Nishith Goel, CISTEL (Canada) Mary Jean Harrold, Ohio State University (USA) Mariam Kamkar, Linkoping University (Sweden) Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, Florida Atlantic University (USA) Bruno Lague, Bell Canada (Canada) Filippo Lanubile, University of Maryland, College Park (USA) Paul Layzell, UMIST (UK) Andrea de Lucia, Univ. of Salerno, Italy Nazim H. Madhavji, McGill University (Canada) Loredana Mancini, O. Group (Italy) Sandra Morasca, Politecnico di Milano (Italy) Walcelio Melo, ORACLE (Brasil) Ettore M. Merlo, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal (Canada) Hausi Muller, University of Victoria (Canada) Malcolm Munro, Centre for Software Maintenance (UK) John C. Munson, University of Idaho (USA) Domenico Natale, SOGEI, Rome, Italy Allen Nokora, JPL (USA) Paul Oman, University of Idaho (USA) Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Systems/Software, Inc. (UAS) Thomas M. Pigoski, Technical Software Services (USA) Vaclav Rajlich, Wayne State University (USA) Gregg Rothermel Oregon State University (USA) Spencer Rugaber, Georgia Institute of Technology (USA) Norman Schneidewind, Naval Postgraduate School (USA) Mike Schrank, MITRE Corporation (USA) Malcolm Slovin, META Group (USA) George Stark, MITRE Corporation (USA) Giuseppe Visaggio, Universita' degli Studi di Bari (Italy) Jeffrey Voas, Reliable Software Technologies (USA) Lee White, Case Western Reserve University (USA) Norman Wilde, University of West Florida (USA) Hongji Yang, De Montfort University (UK) Nicholas Zvegintzov, Software Management Network (USA) ###################################################################### From: Don Bagert OOPSLA Mid-Year Workshop on Education and Training This OOPSLA Mid-Year Applied Object Technology Workshop will provide a forum for those involved in OO training and education to discuss their challenges and share their insights. Rather than concentrating only on philosophy and presentation of ideas, this workshop will focus on collaboration and discussion with the goal of producing and documenting concrete ideas to meet the challenges of teaching OO. Those from industry and academia who are involved in object technology training and education are encouraged to attend. Experienced individuals and those new to OO education and training are welcome. The most important qualification is a willingness to discuss problems, share thoughts and ideas and produce results! Workshop Rationale It is common knowledge that there is a shortage of individuals educated in object technology. This is due in part to the fact that object technology education is complicated and must extend beyond material concentrating solely on the technology. While industry struggles with the expense of providing training for their employees, universities attempt to find the best ways to add OO education to their curriculums. The driving force behind this workshop centers on three observations: - The OO training challenges of industry and academia are similar in many cases and different in only a few. - Concrete solutions to the challenges should be documented so that they can be reused. - Industry and academia can be better served by working together to meet the challenges of supplying the current and future need for OO developers. Focus of the Workshop Although this is a three-day event, it is still not possible to give adequate time to every issue in the large and complicated topic of OO education and training. The leaders of this workshop have discovered through experience that the most successful workshops are ones that have a focus and a goal. Therefore, this workshop will focus on addressing three questions with the goal of documenting the answers to these questions. Three of these are stated below while the fourth is open for suggestions by those who are planning to attend. With this strategy in mind, each position statement should address one or more of the following using concrete and very specific ideas and examples. Focus questions: 1) What are the influential challenges in OO training and education? What are some potential solutions to these challenges? 2) What are the environmental differences between industry and academic teaching and learning? (e.g. length of course, maturity, experience base, learning styles of students, environmental influence on instructional objectives, etc.) What can be shared and learned from each other's experiences in these different environments? 3) What are some specific ways industry and academia work together to do a more efficient job of meeting the challenges in OO education and training? 4) Fourth question is open for suggestions -- will be determined and announced prior to the workshop after the majority of position statements have been received. While examining these questions, discoveries and ideas will surface and be discussed. The final task is to produce a useful and reusable document which clearly summarizes the conclusions of the workshop. This will provide attendees with concrete ideas for improving OO training and education. (Remember, the focus is on concrete solutions for real problems.) General (tentative) Schedule (Specific agenda and action items will be structured after position statements are received by the workshop organizers. The schedule is, of course, open for change if the participants wish.) First day: - Introductions - Position paper presentations. (Each individual will give a very short presentation followed by a short q&a period. Exact time limit for each presentation will be determined after the number of attendees is known.) - Focus groups. (Each individual will choose a group addressing one of the four focus questions.) Second day: - Report from the first day focus groups - Second round of focus groups. (Each individual will choose a different group addressing one of the four focus questions.) - Report from second day focus groups Third day: - Discussion of conclusions from the previous two days - Summary of the concrete ideas and preparation of the documentation Position Statements: Individuals interested in participating in this workshop should submit a position statement of (2 to 5 pages) defining experiences with teaching object technology. Each statement must: - address one or more of the focus questions and/or propose a fourth question - include a short statement of the author's background - contain, at the beginning of the statement, the author(s) name, affiliation, and contact information (E-mail and voice phone). Each attendee will be given a short period during the workshop to present his or her statement. A copy of each position statement paper will be made available to all attendees. Deadline for the position statement papers is April 27. (Early submissions are encouraged.) Notifications of acceptance will be distributed by May 15. Submissions should be made in electronic form preferably in text format. Please submit to: Susan Burk Susan_Burk@mail.amsinc.com Workshop Organizers: Susan Burk American Management Systems. Mary Lynn Manns University of North Carolina at Asheville Donald J. Bagert Texas Tech University ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) and Pete Knoke Software Engineering Graduate Program Survey The November 1997 issue FASE presented the a list of graduate program which were in SE, had SE tracks, or had SE courses, dated 4 March 1996. The editors also posed this question: "It is my understanding that SEI is no longer maintaining this list of graduate software engineeing programs. Would you like to have FASE do an annual survey which would update this list?" The affirmative responses to this question by FASE readers has led to the development of this questionnaire by Pete Knoke of the University of Alaska - Fairbanks and Don Bagert of Texas Tech University, on behalf of both FASE and the Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training [see separate article on the Working Group.] The questionnaire's length reflects both the desire to obtain all pertinent information for evaluation and dissemination and the diversity of institutions around the world. The survey should take about 10-15 minutes to fill out. The survey is intended for all institutions which have graduate computing programs, even if there are no SE graduate courses there (since that too is useful information). Initial publication of results will be published in the September 1998 issue of FASE. Please forward this to any parties that you think could provide information. Thank you for your time in helping this endeavor to be successful. ______ Software Engineering Graduate Degree Questionnaire (15 March 1998) Return send this questionnaire via electronic mail to Peter J. Knoke by 31 August 1998. 1. Date: _________ 2. Name of institution: _________________________________________ 3. Is there a graduate program at your institution which has at least one course in software engineering? (Use an X for your answer.) ____ Yes ____ No If your answer is "No", please skip to question 20. Otherwise, please continue with question 4. 4. Academic unit(s) that house software engineering (e.g. College of Engineering) a. ________________________________ b. ________________________________ 5. The academic department(s) that house software engineering (e.g. Department of Computer Science) a. ________________________________ b. ________________________________ 6. Actual title of degree(s) offered that are related to software engineering, as it would appear on the graduate's diploma, and the field of study for the program (e.g. Master's of Science in Software Engineering, Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science): a. Title ______________________ Field ___________________________ b. Title ______________________ Field ___________________________ c. Title ______________________ Field ___________________________ (Please add more lines if necessary) For questions 7-12 below, fill in slots a, b, and c with information corresponding to that degree. 7. What is the relationship of software engineering to the degree? Answer F if Software engineering is the focus of the degree. Answer T Software engineering is a track or specialization within the degree, as specified in the official institution academic catalog that defines the program. Answer C Software engineering courses are available in the program. (Mark whichever answer is the most appropriate for each degree.) a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ 8. Approximate date the degrees began (If there is only a software engineering "track", list the year that track was started, if there are only courses in software engineering; list the year courses were first introduced to the program): a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ 9. For each degree, state whether a thesis/dissertation is required, a thesis/dissertation is never written, or whether either option is available. (Note: Of course, non-thesis options usually apply only to Master's programs.) Use an X for your answer in each case. a. ____ Thesis Only ____ Non-Thesis Only ____ Have both options b. ____ Thesis Only ____ Non-Thesis Only ____ Have both options c. ____ Thesis Only ____ Non-Thesis Only ____ Have both options 10. Number of credit hours required for each degree (use a range of hours where appropriate): a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ 11. Approximate number of students in each degree program: a. ____ Total ____ Full-time ___ Part-time b. ____ Total ____ Full-time ___ Part-time c. ____ Total ____ Full-time ___ Part-time 12. Approximate number of graduates in each degree program to date (If there is only a software engineering "track", start with the year that track was started; if there are only courses in software engineering, start with the year courses were first introduced to the program): a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ 13. Total number of software engineering courses available: ____ 14. System used for courses at your institution (mark an X by which answer is the most appropriate): ____ semester system (standard course length is 15-16 weeks) ____ quarter system (standard course length is 10-11 weeks) ____ other (describe) _________________________________________ 15. If the program's primary focus is software engineering, describe what options/tracks are available (e.g. business option within a Master of Software Engineering degree): a. ______________________________________________________________ b. ______________________________________________________________ c. ______________________________________________________________ 16. Year of institution catalog used for the above information: ____ 17. Number of full-time faculty with primary interest in software engineering: ____ 18. Number of part-time adjunct/faculty with primary interest in software engineering: ____ 19. Web URL address of information about the degree programs: ______________________________________________________ 20. Name and postal address of contact person: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 21. Email address of contact person: _________________________________ 22. Comments, or any additional information not available on the web page: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Return send this questionnaire via electronic mail to Peter J. Knoke by 31 August 1998. ###################################################################### From: Nancy Mead Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training An informal working group on software engineering education and training has been established. The mission, activities, membership, etc. are outlined below. The group is facilitated by Nancy Mead at the Software Engineering Institute. If you would like to be an active member in the group, please contact Nancy at nrm@sei.cmu.edu. Note that members are expected to attend working meetings and work on actions identified by the group. Members are responsible for their own labor and travel, as noted below. Working group on Software Engineering Education and Training Mission - improve the state of software engineering education and training practice in professional development - propose solutions for world at large - propose solutions to broader issues Activities - investigate issues, propose solutions, and take appropriate actions - publish state of the practice Information (results from actions of group) - publish working group activities and results Membership - professionals in industry, government, and academia willing to work toward improving software engineering education (see mission) - invitation only (Professionals are welcome to join the working group at any time. If the working group begins to get too large, the issue will be revisited.) - meet 2 days, twice yearly - members responsible for their own labor and expenses Purpose - share information and best practices on software engineering education - investigate issues and proposing solutions and actions - promote industry, government, academic collaboration - promote software engineering education as a student (customer)- centered activity - promote investment in training by management and employees - clarify the role of education and its benefit - obtain and publish data on software engineering education at all levels ---------------------------------------------------- The focus of the working group is on SW practitioners in the field, and their professional development, whether that is through degree programs, continuing education, OJT, or whatever. Current areas of study include best practices in industry/university collaboration and Software Engineering specialties and curricula. Attendance is not required at every workshop, but it is expected that all group members will contribute to the work of the group. The group is action-oriented, and focuses on actions that can be taken in a 6 month - 1 year timeframe. For those who are unable to attend meetings or to actually work with the group, but who are interested in the work of the group, there is a correspondence group that receives minutes. Accomplishments: Business case approach to continuing education documented (video and materials distributed). Organizational structure for training documented (Robert Firth 1996 CSEE paper) Electronic newsletter for continuing education (Kathy Beckman now a co-editor of FASE, FASE expanded to include continuing ed). FASE/Working Group to maintain list of software engineering degree programs (Don Bagert at Texas Tech University [see article elsewhere in this issue]) Paper on delivery mechanisms (Capell report on media in education) http://www.sei.cmu.edu Truth in advertising/template for education vendors (Sheneui Sloan of CSULB has completed this). The Training Acquisition and Development Template is located at http://www.uces.csulb.edu/seft/templates.html SEI Report on best industry practices in training (Benchmarking activity led by Larry Tobin of LTA) http://www.sei.cmu.edu Publication of Directory on industry/university collaboration (Kathy Beckman is author, published as an SEI Report). http://www.sei.cmu.edu Publication of draft guidelines for software engineering education (Don Bagert at Texas Tech University) Example activities in progress: Benchmark best practices in industry/university collaboration Encourage industry/university collaborations: Continue to add collaborations to Directory Identify specializations in software engineering Provide guidelines for software engineering education Participate in ACM/IEEE Education Task Force [Editor's Note: The minutes of the February 21-22 Working Group Meeting will appear in the next issue of FASE.] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Faculty Positions ###################################################################### From: John Jenkins City University, London Academic Posts in Computing Computing Science research at City University, London has international recognition in several areas. It is our intention to augment our current portfolio with new research teams as well as strengthening some of our areas of current interest. Professors/Readers, Senior Lecturers/Lecturers in Computing - Reference 185. We are particularly interested in making appointments in the following areas but applicants with a strong research background in other areas of computing are also invited to apply: * Distributed systems - including but not restricted to networks, distributed software engineering, mobile computing, agents and multi-agent systems. * Software engineering - including but not restricted to mathematical foundations, distributed and compositional software development. * Novel computational methods- including probabilistic and stochastic reasoning, genetic algorithms and genetic programming, neural networks. * Computer security. For informal enquiries please contact: Professor Peter Osmon, Dean of the School of Informatics, (+44) 0171-477-8800, email peter@soi.city.ac.uk. Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Computing, specialising in Human-Computer Interaction and Lecturer in Computing, specialising in Requirements Engineering - Reference 183 Applications are invited for posts in the Centre for Human Computer Interface Design to develop current research interests in: * Requirements engineering - including methods and tools for scenario based and collaborative RE, requirements acquisition, reuse and component engineering. * Human computer interaction - cognitive engineering and design methdology, focusing on virtual reality, multimedia, information retrieval and complex collaborative systems. For informal enquiries please contact: Professor Alistair Sutcliffe, (+44) 0171-477-8411, email a.g.sutcliffe@city.ac.uk School of Informatics These vacancies are all continuing appointments either on the Lecturer A, B or Senior Lecturer scale from 18,179 to 35,336 pounds inclusive of London Allowance or on the Professorial range. Further particulars of the post are available from: - Academic Registrar's Office, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB - telephone: 0171 477 8039, - fax: 0171 477 8886, or - e-mail: t.m.bransbury@city.ac.uk. Closing date for applications is 6 March 1998. ###################################################################### From: Greg Hilsop Drexel University Tenure-Track Faculty Software Engineering and Information Systems Drexel University invites applications for several tenure-track positions in the College of Information Science and Technology. The College offers innovative and expanding programs in software engineering, information systems, and information science. Preferred interests for software engineering applicants include software measurement and evaluation, process improvement, and software project management. Preferred interests for information systems applicants include databases, systems analysis and design, and networking and distributed computing. Drexel is a privately endowed technological university founded in 1891. Drexel has about 10,000 students, one of the largest undergraduate cooperative education programs in the nation, and many graduate programs oriented toward careers in technical professions. The College has almost 1,000 students and offers five degree programs spanning BS, MS, and Ph.D. All faculty members are expected to pursue an active research program and demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching. The College emphasizes applied research and we consider experience in industry a plus. The College has a tradition of both quantitative and qualitative research and encourages interdisciplinary activity. Tenure track positions require a doctorate in a relevant discipline. Senior level appointments will be considered, if appropriate. To apply, please submit a letter of application and resume by mail, fax, or email to Dr. Gregory W. Hislop, Associate Dean, College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875. Telephone (215) 895-2474. Fax: (215) 895-2494. Email: HISLOPG@post.drexel.edu. The Drexel web site is www.drexel.edu. Review of applications will begin immediately, and applications will be accepted until the positions are filled. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contact and General Information about FASE The Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE) is published on the 15th of each month by the FASE editorial board. Send newsletter articles to one of the editors, preferably by category: Articles pertinent to corporate and government training to Kathy Beckman ; Academic education, and all other categories to Don Bagert . Items must be submitted by the 8th of the month in order to be considered for inclusion in that month's issue. Also, please see the submission guidelines immediately below. FASE submission format guidelines: All submissions must be in ASCII format, and contain no more than 70 characters per line (71 including the new line character). This 70-character/line format must be viewable in a text editor such as Microsoft Notepad WITHOUT using a "word wrap" facility. All characters (outside of the newline) should in the ASCII code range from 32 to 126 (i.e. "printable" in DOS text mode). Everyone that is receiving this is on the FASE mailing list. If you wish to leave this list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: signoff fase To rejoin (or have someone else join) the FASE mailing list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe fase But what if you have something that you want to share with everyone else, before the next issue? For more real-time discussion, there is the FASE-TALK discussion list. It is our hope that it will be to FASE readers what the SIGCSE.members listserv is to that group. (For those of you that don't know, SIGCSE is the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education.) To subscribe to the FASE-TALK list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe fase-talk Please try to limit FASE-TALK to discussion items related to software engineering education and training; CFPs and other such items can still be submitted to the editor for inclusion into FASE. Anyone that belongs to the FASE-TALK mailing list can post to it. FASE-TALK is also used by the editors for "breaking stories" i.e. news that we feel that you would want to hear about before the next issue of FASE comes out. (We do this sparingly, though.) As always, there is no cost for subscribing to either FASE or FASE-TALK! Send requests for information problem reports, returned mail, or other correspondence about this newsletter to If it is a LOC (letter of comment) that can be included as such in a future issue of FASE, please put "letter of comment" (without the quotes) as the subject. Back issues (from 1997 and 1998) can be found on the FASE web page . The FASE Staff: Don Bagert -- Academic/Misc Editor and ListMaster Dept. of Computer Science 8th and Boston Texas Tech University Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA Phone: 806-742-1189 Fax: 806-742-3519 Email: bagert@ttu.edu Kathy Beckman -- Corporate/Government Editor Computer Data Systems One Curie Ct. Rockville MD 20850 USA Phone: 301-921-7027 Fax: 301-921-1004 Email: Kathy.Beckman@cdsi.com Laurie Werth -- Advisory Committee Taylor Hall 2.124 University of Texas at Austin Austin TX 78712 USA Phone: 512-471-9535 Fax: 512-471-8885 Email: lwerth@cs.utexas.edu Nancy Mead -- Advisory Committee Software Engineering Institute 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA Phone: 412-268-5756 Fax: 412-268-5758 Email: nrm@sei.cmu.edu