BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Eric Knauss

Eric Knauss contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringCryptography and SecurityDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingHardware ArchitectureMachine LearningPerformance

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Agile Beyond Teams and Feedback Beyond Software in Automotive Systems

In order to increase the ability to build complex, software-intensive systems, as well as to decrease time-to-market for new functionality, automotive companies aim to scale agile methods beyond individual teams. This is challenging, given the specifics of automotive systems that are often safety-critical and consist of software, hardware, and mechanical components. This paper investigates the concrete reasons for scaling agility beyond teams, the strategies that support such scaling, and foreseeable implications that such a drastic organizational change will entail. The investigation is based on a qualitative case study, with data from 20 semi-structured interviews with managers and technical experts at two automotive companies. At the core of our findings are observations about establishing an agile vehicle-level feedback loop beyond individual teams. (I) We find that automotive OEMs aim to decrease lead-time of development. (II) We also identify 7 strategies that aim to enable scaled-agile beyond teams. (III) Finally, we extract 6 foreseeable implications and side-effects of scaling agile beyond teams in automotive. By charting the landscape of expected benefits, strategies, and implications of scaling agile beyond teams in automotive, we enable further research and process improvements.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Setting AI in context: A case study on defining the context and operational design domain for automated driving

[Context and motivation] For automated driving systems, the operational context needs to be known in order to state guarantees on performance and safety. The operational design domain (ODD) is an abstraction of the operational context, and its definition is an integral part of the system development process. [Question / problem] There are still major uncertainties in how to clearly define and document the operational context in a diverse and distributed development environment such as the automotive industry. This case study investigates the challenges with context definitions for the development of perception functions that use machine learning for automated driving. [Principal ideas/results] Based on qualitative analysis of data from semi-structured interviews, the case study shows that there is a lack of standardisation for context definitions across the industry, ambiguities in the processes that lead to deriving the ODD, missing documentation of assumptions about the operational context, and a lack of involvement of function developers in the context definition. [Contribution] The results outline challenges experienced by an automotive supplier company when defining the operational context for systems using machine learning. Furthermore, the study collected ideas for potential solutions from the perspective of practitioners.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

VEDLIoT: Very Efficient Deep Learning in IoT

The VEDLIoT project targets the development of energy-efficient Deep Learning for distributed AIoT applications. A holistic approach is used to optimize algorithms while also dealing with safety and security challenges. The approach is based on a modular and scalable cognitive IoT hardware platform. Using modular microserver technology enables the user to configure the hardware to satisfy a wide range of applications. VEDLIoT offers a complete design flow for Next-Generation IoT devices required for collaboratively solving complex Deep Learning applications across distributed systems. The methods are tested on various use-cases ranging from Smart Home to Automotive and Industrial IoT appliances. VEDLIoT is an H2020 EU project which started in November 2020. It is currently in an intermediate stage with the first results available.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Constructive Master's Thesis Work in Industry: Guidelines for Applying Design Science Research

Context: Software engineering researchers and practitioners rely on empirical evidence from the field. Thus, education of software engineers must include strong and applied education in empirical research methods. For most students, the master's thesis is the last, but also most applied form of this education in their studies. Problem: Especially thesis work in collaboration with industry requires that concerns of stakeholders from academia and practice are carefully balanced. It is possible, yet difficult to do high-impact empirical work within the timeframe of a typical thesis. In particular, if this research aims to provide practical value to industry, academic quality can suffer. Even though constructive research methods such as Design Science Research (DSR) exist, thesis projects repeatably struggle to apply them. Principle solution idea: DSR enables balancing such concerns by providing room both for knowledge questions and design work. Yet, only limited experience exists in our field on how to make this research method work within the context of a master's thesis. To enable running design science master's theses in collaboration with industry, we complement existing method descriptions and guidelines with our own experience and pragmatic advice to students, examiners, and supervisors in academia and industry. Method: This paper itself is based on DSR. Based on 12 design science theses over the last seven years, we collect common pitfalls and good practice from analysing the theses, the student-supervisor interaction, the supervisor-industry interaction, the examiner feedback, and, where available, reviewer comments on publications that are based on such theses. Results: We provide concrete advise for framing research questions, structuring a report, as well as for planning and conducting empirical work with practitioners.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Charting Coordination Needs in Large-Scale Agile Organisationswith Boundary Objects and Methodological Islands

Large-scale system development companies are increasingly adopting agile methods. While this adoption may improve lead-times, such companies need to balance two trade-offs: (i) the need to have a uniform, consistent development method on system level with the need for specialised methods for teams in different disciplines(e.g., hardware, software, mechanics, sales, support); (ii) the need for comprehensive documentation on system level with the need to have lightweight documentation enabling iterative and agile work. With specialised methods for teams, isolated teams work within larger ecosystems of plan-driven culture, i.e., teams become agile "islands". At the boundaries, these teams share knowledge which needs to be managed well for a correct system to be developed. While it is useful to support diverse and specialised methods, it is important to understand which islands are repeatedly encountered, the reasons or factors triggering their existence, and how best to handle coordination between them. Based on a multiple case study, this work presents a catalogue of islands and the boundary objects between them. We believe this work will be beneficial to practitioners aiming to understand their ecosystems and researchers addressing communication and coordination challenges in large-scale development.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Modeling and Analysis of Boundary Objects and Methodological Islands in Large-Scale Systems Development

Large-scale companies commonly face the challenge of managing relevant knowledge between different organizational groups, particularly in increasingly agile contexts. In previous studies, we found the importance of analyzing methodological islands (i.e., groups using different development methods than the surrounding organization) and boundary objects between them. In this paper, we propose a metamodel to better capture and analyze coordination and knowledge management in practice. Such a metamodel can allow practitioners to describe current practices, analyze issues, and design better-suited coordination mechanisms. We evaluated the conceptual model together with four large-scale companies developing complex systems. In particular, we derived an initial list of bad smells that can be leveraged to detect issues and devise suitable improvement strategies for inter-team coordination in large-scale development. We present the model, smells, and our evaluation results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Why and How to Balance Alignment and Diversity of Requirements Engineering Practices in Automotive

In large-scale automotive companies, various requirements engineering (RE) practices are used across teams. RE practices manifest in Requirements Information Models (RIM) that define what concepts and information should be captured for requirements. Collaboration of practitioners from different parts of an organization is required to define a suitable RIM that balances support for diverse practices in individual teams with the alignment needed for a shared view and team support on system level. There exists no guidance for this challenging task. This paper presents a mixed methods study to examine the role of RIMs in balancing alignment and diversity of RE practices in four automotive companies. Our analysis is based on data from systems engineering tools, 11 semi-structured interviews, and a survey to validate findings and suggestions. We found that balancing alignment and diversity of RE practices is important to consider when defining RIMs. We further investigated enablers for this balance and actions that practitioners take to achieve it. From these factors, we derived and evaluated recommendations for managing RIMs in practice that take into account the lifecycle of requirements and allow for diverse practices across sub-disciplines in early development, while enforcing alignment of requirements that are close to release.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Why and How Your Traceability Should Evolve: Insights from an Automotive Supplier

Traceability is a key enabler of various activities in automotive software and systems engineering and required by several standards. However, most existing traceability management approaches do not consider that traceability is situated in constantly changing development contexts involving multiple stakeholders. Together with an automotive supplier, we analyzed how technology, business, and organizational factors raise the need for flexible traceability. We present how traceability can be evolved in the development lifecycle, from early elicitation of traceability needs to the implementation of mature traceability strategies. Moreover, we shed light on how traceability can be managed flexibly within an agile team and more formally when crossing team borders and organizational borders. Based on these insights, we present requirements for flexible tool solutions, supporting varying levels of data quality, change propagation, versioning, and organizational traceability.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access