Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “research software engineering”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Do Research Software Engineers and Software Engineering Researchers Speak the Same Language?

Anecdotal evidence suggests that research software engineers (RSEs) and software engineering researchers (SERs) often use different terminologies for similar concepts, creating communication challenges. To better understand these divergences, we have started investigating how software engineering fundamentals from the SER community are interpreted within the RSE community, identifying aligned concepts, knowledge gaps, and areas for potential adaptation. In conclusion, our preliminary findings reveal opportunities for mutual learning and collaboration, and our systematic methodology for terminology mapping provides a foundation for a crowdsourced extension and validation in the future.

Kehrer, Timo [Univ. of Bern (Switzerland)] (ORCID:↗
NASA NTRS1990

Towards a mature measurement environment: Creating a software engineering research environment

Software engineering researchers are building tools, defining methods, and models; however, there are problems with the nature and style of the research. The research is typically bottom-up, done in isolation so the pieces cannot be easily logically or physically integrated. A great deal of the research is essentially the packaging of a particular piece of technology with little indication of how the work would be integrated with other prices of research. The research is not aimed at solving the real problems of software engineering, i.e., the development and maintenance of quality systems in a productive manner. The research results are not evaluated or analyzed via experimentation or refined and tailored to the application environment. Thus, it cannot be easily transferred into practice. Because of these limitations we have not been able to understand the components of the discipline as a coherent whole and the relationships between various models of the process and product. What is needed is a top down experimental, evolutionary framework in which research can be focused, logically and physically integrated to produce quality software productively, and evaluated and tailored to the application environment. This implies the need for experimentation, which in turn implies the need for a laboratory that is associated with the artifact we are studying. This laboratory can only exist in an environment where software is being built, i.e., as part of a real software development and maintenance organization. Thus, we propose that Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) type activities exist in all organizations to support software engineering research. We describe the SEL from a researcher's point of view, and discuss the corporate and government benefits of the SEL. The discussion focuses on the benefits to the research community.

Basili, Victor R.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Research Software Engineering: Introducing a New Computing in Science & Engineering Department

Here, this article introduces the new Research Software Engineering (RSEng) department at Computing in Science & Engineering. Through a conversation with the department coeditors, we highlight why RSEng matters, how it differs from industrial software engineering, what it means to be an RSE, and the scholarly and practical questions that lie ahead. Along the way, we draw on emerging literature, case studies, and community perspectives to frame the profession and practice of RSEng within computational science and engineering.

Lamprecht, Anna-Lena [Univ. of Potsdam (Germany)] ↗
NASA NTRS2022

Advocating for Equality of Contribution: The Research Software Engineer (RSE)

Heliophysics depends on RSEs to properly engineer software. However, RSEs receive unequal treatment compared to their science counterparts, resulting in unsustainable talent loss. These restrictions include lack of credit for their contributions and insufficient training. This paper describes what a RSE is and proposes solutions, including implementing appropriate recognition standards.

software↗
DOE OSTI2024

WETO Software Stack Best Practices

Wind energy researchers typically share one key characteristic: a passion for increasing wind energy in the global energy mix. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supports this mission in a number of ways including allocating funding directly to various aspects of wind energy research through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) via the Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO). While the traditional output of research is academic publication, software development efforts are increasingly a major focus. Software tools in the research environment allow researchers to describe an idea and quickly increase the scope and scale as they study it further. As a product of research, these tools represent a direct pipeline from researcher to industry practitioners since they are the implementation of ideas described in academic publications. Given this vital role in wind energy research and commercial development, the broad research software portfolio supported by WETO must maintain a minimum level of quality to support the wind energy field in the growing transition to renewable energy. This report outlines a series o f best practices to be adopted by all WETO-supported software projects, as well as expectations that the communities interacting with these projects should have of the developers and tools themselves. Wind energy research software has a unique standing in the field of scientific software. The stakeholders are varied with a subset being: (1) DOE EERE leadership, (2) DOE WETO leadership and program managers, (3) National lab leadership, (4) Associated project principle investigators, (5) Research software engineers, (6) Wind energy researchers in academia (including graduate students, post docs, and national lab staff), (7) Industry researchers and practitioners, (8) Commercial software developers, and (9) The general public interested in wind energy. These software are typically the end-user of other generic software libraries, so the funding cycles are often tied to applied research rather than the development of the software itself. Since the developers are also wind energy researchers, these tools are typically designed in a way that closely resembles the application in which they're used. Additionally, the expertise and incentives for the developers have a high variability, and often neither are aligned with software engineering or computer science. Given the unique environment in which wind energy research software is produced and consumed, it is critical for model owners to understand the context of their software. A framework for developing this understanding is to answer the following questions of a given software project: What is it's purpose? What is its role in the field of wind energy? What is the profile of the expected users? For how long will it be relevant? What is the expected impact? These questions allow model owners to identify the appropriate methods for the design, development, and long term maintenance of their software. Additionally, the answer provide context for future planners to understand why particular decisions were made and discern the consequences of changing course. The information is aggregated from experience within WETO-supported software development groups as well as external organizations and efforts to define the craft of research software engineering. These best practices aim to make the collaborative development process efficient and effective while improving the model understanding across stakeholders. Additionally, the general adoption of a common framework for software quality ensures that the end users of WETO software can trust these tools and accurately understand the risks to workflow integration.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2006

Infusing Software Assurance Research Techniques into Use

Research in the software engineering community continues to lead to new development techniques that encompass processes, methods and tools. However, a number of obstacles impede their infusion into software development practices. These are the recurring obstacles common to many forms of research. Practitioners cannot readily identify the emerging techniques that may benefit them, and cannot afford to risk time and effort evaluating and trying one out while there remains uncertainty about whether it will work for them. Researchers cannot readily identify the practitioners whose problems would be amenable to their techniques, and, lacking feedback from practical applications, are hard-pressed to gauge the where and in what ways to evolve their techniques to make them more likely to be successful. This paper describes an ongoing effort conducted by a software engineering research infusion team established by NASA s Software Engineering Initiative to overcome these obstacles. .

Pressburger, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2005

Infusing software assurance research techniques into use

Research in the software engineering community continues to lead to new development techniques that encompass processes, methods and tools. However, a number of obstacles impede their infusion into software deveopment practices. This paper describes an ongoing effort conducted by a software engineering research infusion team established by NASA's Software Engineering Intiative to overcome these obstacles.

Trevino, Luis C.↗
NASA NTRS1977

MUST - An integrated system of support tools for research flight software engineering

The objectives of NASA's MUST (Multipurpose User-oriented Software Technology) program at Langley Research Center are to cut the cost of producing software which effectively utilizes digital systems for flight research. These objectives will be accomplished by providing an integrated system of support software tools for use throughout the research flight software development process. A description of the overall MUST program and its progress toward the release of a first MUST system will be presented. This release includes: a special interactive user interface, a library of subroutines, assemblers, a compiler, automatic documentation tools, and a test and simulation system.

Straeter, T. A.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Research flight software engineering and MUST, an integrated system of support tools

Consideration is given to software development to support NASA flight research. The Multipurpose User-Oriented Software Technology (MUST) program, designed to integrate digital systems into flight research, is discussed. Particular attention is given to the program's special interactive user interface, subroutine library, assemblers, compiler, automatic documentation tools, and test and simulation subsystems.

Straeter, T. A.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Software Engineering Workshop

On December 1 and 2, the Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL), a consortium composed of NASA/Goddard, the University of Maryland, and CSC, held the 24th Software Engineering Workshop (SEW), the last of the millennium. Approximately 240 people attended the 2-day workshop. Day 1 was composed of four sessions: International Influence of the Software Engineering Laboratory; Object Oriented Testing and Reading; Software Process Improvement; and Space Software. For the first session, three internationally known software process experts discussed the influence of the SEL with respect to software engineering research. In the Space Software session, prominent representatives from three different NASA sites- GSFC's Marti Szczur, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Rick Doyle, and the Ames Research Center IV&V Facility's Lou Blazy- discussed the future of space software in their respective centers. At the end of the first day, the SEW sponsored a reception at the GSFC Visitors' Center. Day 2 also provided four sessions: Using the Experience Factory; A panel discussion entitled "Software Past, Present, and Future: Views from Government, Industry, and Academia"; Inspections; and COTS. The day started with an excellent talk by CSC's Frank McGarry on "Attaining Level 5 in CMM Process Maturity." Session 2, the panel discussion on software, featured NASA Chief Information Officer Lee Holcomb (Government), our own Jerry Page (Industry), and Mike Evangelist of the National Science Foundation (Academia). Each presented his perspective on the most important developments in software in the past 10 years, in the present, and in the future.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2006

The NASA Software Research Infusion Initiative: Successful Technology Transfer for Software Assurance

New processes, methods and tools are constantly appearing in the field of software engineering. Many of these augur great potential in improving software development processes, resulting in higher quality software with greater levels of assurance. However, there are a number of obstacles that impede their infusion into software development practices. These are the recurring obstacles common to many forms of research. Practitioners cannot readily identify the emerging techniques that may most benefit them, and cannot afford to risk time and effort in evaluating and experimenting with them while there is still uncertainty about whether they will have payoff in this particular context. Similarly, researchers cannot readily identify those practitioners whose problems would be amenable to their techniques and lack the feedback from practical applications necessary to help them to evolve their techniques to make them more likely to be successful. This paper describes an ongoing effort conducted by a software engineering research infusion team, and the NASA Research Infusion Initiative, established by NASA s Software Engineering Initiative, to overcome these obstacles.

Hinchey, Michael G.↗
NASA NTRS1993

The (mis)use of subjective process measures in software engineering

A variety of measures are used in software engineering research to develop an understanding of the software process and product. These measures fall into three broad categories: quantitative, characteristics, and subjective. Quantitative measures are those to which a numerical value can be assigned, for example effort or lines of code (LOC). Characteristics describe the software process or product; they might include programming language or the type of application. While such factors do not provide a quantitative measurement of a process or product, they do help characterize them. Subjective measures (as defined in this study) are those that are based on the opinion or opinions of individuals; they are somewhat unique and difficult to quantify. Capturing of subjective measure data typically involves development of some type of scale. For example, 'team experience' is one of the subjective measures that were collected and studied by the Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL). Certainly, team experience could have an impact on the software process or product; actually measuring a team's experience, however, is not a strictly mathematical exercise. Simply adding up each team member's years of experience appears inadequate. In fact, most researchers would agree that 'years' do not directly translate into 'experience.' Team experience must be defined subjectively and then a scale must be developed e.g., high experience versus low experience; or high, medium, low experience; or a different or more granular scale. Using this type of scale, a particular team's overall experience can be compared with that of other teams in the development environment. Defining, collecting, and scaling subjective measures is difficult. First, precise definitions of the measures must be established. Next, choices must be made about whose opinions will be solicited to constitute the data. Finally, care must be given to defining the right scale and level of granularity for measurement.

Valett, Jon D.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Integrating Theory and Practice: Applying the Quality Improvement Paradigm to Product Line Engineering

My assertion is that not only are product lines a relevant research topic, but that the tools used by empirical software engineering researchers can address observed practical problems. Our experience at NASA has been there are often externally proposed solutions available, but that we have had difficulties applying them in our particular context. We have also focused on return on investment issues when evaluating product lines, and while these are important, one can not attain objective data on success or failure until several applications from a product family have been deployed. The use of the Quality Improvement Paradigm (QIP) can address these issues: (1) Planning an adoption path from an organization's current state to a product line approach; (2) Constructing a development process to fit the organization's adoption path; (3) Evaluation of product line development processes as the project is being developed. The QIP consists of the following six steps: (1) Characterize the project and its environment; (2) Set quantifiable goals for successful project performance; (3) Choose the appropriate process models, supporting methods, and tools for the project; (4) Execute the process, analyze interim results, and provide real-time feedback for corrective action; (5) Analyze the results of completed projects and recommend improvements; and (6) Package the lessons learned as updated and refined process models. A figure shows the QIP in detail. The iterative nature of the QIP supports an incremental development approach to product lines, and the project learning and feedback provide the necessary early evaluations.

Stark, Michael↗
DOE OSTI2023

Challenges and Strategies for Testing Automation Practices at Sandia National Laboratories

Sandia National Laboratories is a premier United States national security laboratory which develops science-based technologies in areas such as nuclear deterrence, energy production, and climate change. Computing plays a key role in its diverse missions, and within that environment, Research Software Engineers (RSEs) and other scientific software developers utilize testing automation to ensure quality and maintainability of their work. We conducted a Participatory Action Research study to explore the challenges and strategies for testing automation through the lens of academic literature. Through the experiences collected and comparison with open literature, we identify these challenges in testing automation and then present strategies for mitigation grounded in evidence-based practice and experience reports that other, similar institutions can assess for their automation needs.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1983

Early estimation of resource expenditures and program size

A substantial amount of software engineering research effort was focused on the development of software estimation models. A measure of lines of code was derived based on the origin of the delivered code, L sub dev = N + E + 0.2 (S + O) (where L sub dev = developed lines of code, N = newly implemented lines of code, E = extensively modified lines of code, S = slightly modified lines of code, and O = old unchanged lines of code) that is substituted in the following equation H sub s = aL sup b (where H sub s = staff-hours of effort, L = lines of code, a = a constant, and b = a constant). The limitations of this model are discussed and some alternative estimation models that can be used earlier in the development process are proposed.

Card, D.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Johnson Space Center software reuse activity

There is a strong operational interest in reuse and commonality at the Johnson Space Center (JSC). Although commonality and reuse were not emphasized in the Space Shuttle Orbiter Project, it is a major goal for Space Station Freedom and the Software Support Environment (SSE). Research activities at JSC are generally conducted through the Software Engineering Research Center (SERC) of the University of Houston at Clear Lake. The Life Cycle Model developed by SERC includes reuse at each phase, but reuse is not a principal theme. The SSE is a significant entry point for new reuse technology, and the SERC can provide consultation and possible prototypes. SERC is seen as an interface to other NISE reuse researchers. The AdaNET is managed at JSC through the University of Houston at Clear Lake for the NASA Office of Technology Utilization. It may also be a gateway for reuse research.

Gorman, Steve↗
NASA NTRS1984

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Software Engineering Workshop

Experiences in measurement, utilization, and evaluation of software methodologies, models, and tools are discussed. NASA's involvement in ever larger and more complex systems, like the space station project, provides a motive for the support of software engineering research and the exchange of ideas in such forums. The topics of current SEL research are software error studies, experiments with software development, and software tools.

Source record↗