Abstract
Runtime verification, with its practical applicability and myriad of theoretical challenges it still poses, has the potential to bridge the gap between academic research in the field of formal methods with the software industry. In order to facilitate this, it is useful to extrapolate success patterns from previous projects: Are certain characteristics of an industry-academia project a determining factor in the project’s success? How can runtime verification design decisions take into considerations project characteristics to improve the chances of success?
This paper attempts to shed some light on these questions by reflecting on five projects with two partners over the past ten years. A number of lessons emerge, perhaps the most poignant one being the need to think long term in setting mutually beneficial goals from which a strong working relationship can emerge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
While it would have been preferable to include a wider set of projects in our analysis (including those from other research groups), we found that reporting of the “post-mortem” of such projects is sparse in the literature. Many of the observations we make in this paper are on the non-scientific aspects of the research projects (e.g. whether participation of the industrial partner in the project had an impact on the way they approached validation and verification of other systems they were developing), which are typically not discussed in scientific reports of the outcome of such projects. Therefore, while we are aware of several projects which have applied academic techniques in an industrial setting, we cannot include these in this paper due to the lack of information of what happened after the end of the project.
- 2.
Sometimes referred to as the observer effect, the Hawthorne effect is the phenomenon that when aware of being observed, individuals may modify aspects of their behaviour.
- 3.
- 4.
Names of the industrial partners are left out due to information sensitivity and in order to allow us to be able to discuss project success or otherwise more freely.
References
Aksit, M., Tekinerdogan, B., Sozer, H., Safi, H.F., Ayas, M.: The DESARC method: an effective approach for university-industry cooperation, pp. 51–53. Institute of Research Engineers and Doctors, January 2015. https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-038-5-10
Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C.: The disappearing boundary between development-time and run-time. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research, FoSER 2010, at the 18th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, Santa Fe, NM, USA, 7–11 November 2010, pp. 17–22 (2010)
Cassar, I., Francalanza, A., Aceto, L., Ingólfsdóttir, A.: A survey of runtime monitoring instrumentation techniques. In: Proceedings Second International Workshop on Pre- and Post-Deployment Verification Techniques, PrePost@iFM, pp. 15–28 (2017)
Chen, F., Roşu, G.: Java-MOP: a monitoring oriented programming environment for Java. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 546–550. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31980-1_36
Colombo, C., Pace, G., Abela, P.: Safer asynchronous runtime monitoring using compensations. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 41(3), 269–294 (2012)
Colombo, C., Pace, G.J.: Industrial experiences with runtime verification of financial transaction systems: lessons learnt and standing challenges. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 211–232. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_7
Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Dynamic event-based runtime monitoring of real-time and contextual properties. In: Cofer, D., Fantechi, A. (eds.) FMICS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5596, pp. 135–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03240-0_13
Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: LARVA – safer monitoring of real-time java programs (tool paper). In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, SEFM 2009, Hanoi, Vietnam, 23–27 November 2009, pp. 33–37 (2009)
Falcone, Y., Mounier, L., Fernandez, J.-C., Richier, J.-L.: Runtime enforcement monitors: composition, synthesis, and enforcement abilities. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 38(3), 223–262 (2011)
Kiczales, G.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2005), 15–21 May 2005, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, p. 730 (2005)
Kuhn, T.: A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. CoRR, abs/1507.01701 (2015)
Niknafs, A., Berry, D.M.: An industrial case study of the impact of domain ignorance on the effectiveness of requirements idea generation during requirements elicitation. In: 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2013, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil, 15–19 July 2013, pp. 279–283 (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Colombo, C., Pace, G.J. (2018). Considering Academia-Industry Projects Meta-characteristics in Runtime Verification Design. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Industrial Practice. ISoLA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11247. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03427-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03427-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03426-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03427-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)