Definitions of Tool Integration for Env ironments IAN THOMAS, Hewlett-Packard BRIAN A. NEJMEH innovative Software Engineering Practices * What does here has been con- Tool integration is about the extent to “integration ” mean? Tsiderable discussion in recent years about which tools agree. The subject of these the integration of software-engineering agreements may include data format, Integration is a environments, perhaps beginning with user-interface conventions, use of com- the use of “integrated” in the term 1PSE mon functions, or other aspects of tool propeq of tool (integrated project-support environment) construction. To determine how well and continuing with the coinage of the tools agree - and how well they are inte- interrelationships. terms ICASE (integrated CASE) and grated into an environment - we pro- Understanding it ISEE (integrated software-engineering pose a framework that focuses on d&zing environment). integration, independently of the mecha- will help us design Although some have tried to define nisms and approaches used to support in- precisely what “integration” means in tegration. better tools and these terms, we believe these definitions Our purpose is to identify the goals of are not as precise as they should be. We integration and propose some questions integration believe integration is not a property of a that establish what information is needed single tool, but of its relationships with to know that these goals have been mechanisms. other elements in the environment, reached. In this respect, we are following chiefly other tools, a platform, and a pro- Victor Basili and D&d Weiss’s approach cess. Of these, we believe the key notion is for metrics development, in which they the relationships between tools and the advocate identifying goals, questions that properties of these relationships. refine the goals, and quantifiable metrics IEEE SOFTWARE 07407459/92/0300/0029/$03 00 D IEEE 29 that provide the information to answer the and framework-technology builders. It tools. The software-engineering commu- questions.’ However, we do not propose provides them with a definitional fi-ame- nity generally agrees on the importance of quantifiable integration metrics here. work in which these four tool relationships, but the defi- Anthony Wasserman identified five + users can characterize areas in their nitions of integration properties are not as kinds of integration: pkz$&z, which is environments in which tools should be precise as they should be. concerned with framework services; pre- better integrated; Figure 1 shows an entity-relationship sentation, concerned with * tool evaluators can diagram depicting a single tool, four rela- user interaction; data, identify criteria to evalu- tionships, and our elaborated properties concerned with the use of ate tool sets they want to for each relationship. The four well- data by tools; colztrol,con- Thereare two include in an integrated known relationships are cemed with tool commu- environment; + Presentation: The goal of presenta- nication and interopera- viewpointsin the l tool writers can ex- tion integration is to improve the effi- tion; and pmcesT, discussionof amine design and archi- ciency and effectiveness of the user’s inter- concerned with the role tectural issues as they de- action with the environment by reducing of tools in the software integration:the velop the next generation his cognitive load. process.’ of integrated environ- + Data: The goal of data integration is We extend Wasser- environmentuser ’s ments and identify good to ensure that all the information in the man’s analysis by building and he environment practice for the use of environment is managed as a consistent on his definitions of pre- emerging integration- whole, regardless of how parts of it are sentation, data, control, builder’s. support mechanisms; and operated on and transformed. and process integration. + framework-tech- l Control: The goal of control integra- Our elaborations are nology builders can ex- tion is to allow the flexible combination of based on experience with framework ser- plain how proposed and existing integra- an environment’s functions, according to vices and integrated environments and an tion mechanisms contribute to improve- project preferences and driven by the un- analysis of the issues. Because our focus is ments in integration in terms of the prop- derlying processes the environment sup- on the relationship among tools, we do not erties described here. ports. consider platform integration, which we We have tried to separate integration + Procex The goal of process integra- regard as providing the basic elements on properties so as to identify them as clearly tion is to ensure that tools interact effec- which the agreement policies and usage and independently as possible. In practice, tively in support of a defined process. conventions for tools are built. we know that tool writers can use a single Our approach uses binary relation- integration-support mechanism to im- ships, which raises the issue of whether TWOPOINTS OF VIEW prove several integration properties. integration should be defined as how well two tools are integrated or if it should be There are two points of view in the TOOLINTEGRATION de&red as how well many tools are inte- discussion ofintegration: the environment grated. We believe that the second dehni- user’s and the environment builder’s The The goal ofa software-engineering en- tion can be adequately captured as an ag- environment user is concerned with per- vironment is “to provide effective support gregate property, derived horn how well ceived integration at the environment’s for an effective software process.“3 We be- individual tool pairs are integrated. How- interface. The user desires a seamless tool lieve support is more effective if the envi- ever, our focus on how well two tools are collection that facilitates the construction ronment is integrated - if all its compo- integrated does not mean that we support of systems on time and within budget. The nents function as part of a single, integration mechanisms that allow “pri- environment builder, who assembles and consistent, coherent whole. vate” tool agreements. It is important to integrates tools, is concerned with the fea- Integration means that things function distinguish a dejnition of integration from sibility and effort needed to achieve this as members of a coherent whole. When a good mechanismfor integration support. perceived integration. we say, “A is well integrated with B,” we The user would like to see well-inte- are really making many statements be- Presentation‘htegatl~~~. The goal of re- grated tools; the builder would like to see cause A and B are composites with many ducing a user’s cognitive load should apply easily integrable tools. Both perspectives characteristics. To understand howwelL is to individual tools, tool sets, and the envi- are important, and many of the integra- integrated with Brequires a careful examina- ronment as a whole. It can be achieved by tion properties we describe are meaning- tion and comparison of each characteristic. letting users reuse their experience in ful from both points ofview. We extend Wasserman’s four kinds of interacting with other tools by Our more precise way of looking at integration by identifying several well-de- + reducing the number of interaction integration has proved useful to four fined properties that characterize the vari- and presentation paradigms in the envi- groups: users, tool evaluators, tool writers, ous integration relationships between ronment, 30 MARCH 1992 Figure 1. Entity-relationship diagram depicting a single tool,four relatimships, and elaboratedpropertiesfm eachrelationship. + providing interaction and presenta- order of commands and parameters, uni- gle metaphor may be awkward or il tion paradigms that match the user’s men- formity of the presentation of choices in adapted for some cases,while using mar tal models, dialogue boxes, and so on. metaphors may provide one that is we1 + meeting the user’s response-time ex- Both Motif and OpenLook specify suited for each casebut makesit difficult t pectations, and compliance levels that are relevant here. transfer experience between tools. l ensuring that correct, useful infor- However, both leave aspects of appear- For example, a tool to access an mation is maintained at the disposition of ance and behavior undefined, which may browse a database may use a filing-system the user. lead to unnecessary, confusing differences metaphor, with filing cabinets, drawers, We identify two properties in this class, between the appearance and behavior of dossiers, and so on. This metaphor might which we base on the relationships be- two tools. impose a strict containment relationship tween the user interfaces of two tools: ap- A broader definition of appearance and between cabinets and drawers and be- pearance and behavior integration and in- behavior should also cover response-time tween drawers and dossiers.Another tool teraction-paradigm integration. aspects.Similar interactions with two tools for accessing the same information may should have similar response times for present a different metaphor that involves Appeomnceand behavior. This property an- them to be well integrated with respect to navigating around a hypertext sn-ucture, swers the question, How easyis it to inter- this property. Appearance and behavior with no emphasis on containment rela- act with one tool, having already learned might also include using a common mean- tionships.