As information technology has been enabling services, the modern service industry, a cornerstone of the global economy, has driven development of the era of the service economy. According to the World Bank, since the 21stcentury, the service sector's share of global GDP has consistently been between 61% and 65%. “Everything as a service” has become a phenomenon in human society. Education on service science and engineering has been developed to cultivate more young people for the emerging service industry and service society.

These days we hear a lot about AI, its rapid development, and the changes that might result. These concerns are not only in the field, but also overflow into the classroom. Generative AI applications are being introduced at all levels of education. Starting in elementary school, students learn to use generative AI applications, causing concern among parents who may be less familiar with such applications than the young students. As students continue their education, they can learn to use AI applications in various situations.

From theory and technical skills to self-management and interpersonal skills, and to role-specific knowledge such as DevOps or Requirements Engineering, students struggle to become proficient in all aspects to Software Engineering before graduating, while instructors struggle to prepare students for industry. Project-based instruction has become a de-facto standard to teach skills and knowledge. Many project-based courses focus on implementation, wherein students tend to adopt third-party technologies without critical reflection. This leads to insufficient knowledge about supply chain risk management (SCRM). The result is that students are inadequately prepared to handle risks to project success due to third-party acquisitions, including usage rights, introduction of security vulnerabilities, or their ability to identify and mitigate acquisition risks. In this paper, we present a capstone-style project-based course to deliver an industry-realistic and teamwork-centric software development approach. We propose incorporating Technology Acquisition Plans, which are based on an existing SCRM curriculum, and add acquisition planning, bidding, and risk monitoring activities to the project and development activities. Empirical evaluation and classroom observations show that while students' ability to justify the need for third-party acquisitions remains the same, self-reported ability to evaluate and bid on alternatives is improved. Furthermore, statistically significant improvement can be seen in areas pertaining to risk monitoring, problem detection, and problem resolution.

Professional organizations are developing a new overview curricular document titled “Computing Curricula 2020” (CC2020). This project captures the status of computing education and practice and it suggests directions for the future of computing education as it might evolve in the 2020s and beyond. Regarding software engineering, a prior workshop held at CSEE&T 2017 became a catalyst for activities that began in the early part of 2018 by producing a set of draft software engineering competencies based on the SE2014 report. These draft competencies became a part of the CC2020 project, and they should stimulate further refinement that can form a basis for a new software engineering curricular report as a successor to SE2014. After the authors present an overview of the CC2020 project and industry expectations of software engineering graduates, all participants will engage in discussions on ways to refine existing software engineering competencies using CC2020 and the software engineering competency model (SWECOM). They will also explore ways to prepare the software engineering community for new educational curricular guidelines for the future. The authors anticipate full audience involvement and participation in formulating this vision.

The aim of this paper is to publicize both the challenge and potential solution for the integration of secure supply chain risk management content into conventional software engineering programs. Specifically, software engineering programs typically do not teach how to ensure that the code produced and sold in commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products hasn't been compromised through the sourcing process. We propose four instructional modules and topics based on established principles that can form the basis of a comprehensive course to address secure sourcing of COTS products.

Several national and international computing and engineering organizations are in the process of developing a new curricular document tentatively titled 'Computing Curricula 2020' (CC2020). This curricular project, based on its predecessor CC2005, intends to reflect the state-of-the-art in computing education and practice as well as the future of the computing educational field for the 2020s. This workshop provides an overview of the CC2005 report and its transition to the CC2020 project. It also provides unique perspectives from three members of the CC2020 task force. The workshop authors and participants will engage in lively discussions on ways to include software engineering as a significant component of the project and extend its influence in global undergraduate computing education for the future. The authors anticipate full audience involvement and participation in formulating this vision.

Security threats should be identified in the early phases of a project so that design solutions can be explored and mitigating requirements specified. In this paper, we present a crowd-sourcing approach for creating Personae non Gratae (PnGs), which model attack goals and techniques of unwanted, potentially malicious users. We present a proof of concept study that takes a diverse collection of potentially redundant PnGs and merges them into a single set. Our approach combines machine learning techniques and visualization. It is illustrated and evaluated using a collection of PnGs collected from undergraduate students for a drone-based rescue scenario. Lessons learned from the proof of concept study are discussed and lay the foundations for future work.

In this paper, we describe a partnership between the Central Illinois Center of Excellence for Secure Software (CICESS) and Illinois Central College (ICC) that resulted in the creation of a two-year degree program in Secure Software Development. That program incorporated an apprenticeship model and the Software Engineering Institute's software assurance curriculum recommendations at the community college level. We describe the industry needs, the software assurance curriculum recommendations, how ICC implemented those recommendations, and the return on investment model presented to industry.

This paper provides background and context for our planned presentation and discussion that will explore the emerging computing-based discipline of cyber sciences, focusing on its relationship to software engineering. We will also discuss the relationship of the Cyber Education Project to other related work, how educators can get involved, accreditation of cyber sciences degrees, and more. Results of our discussion will be provided to the Cyber Education Project.

This panel session will explore strategies for industry/university collaboration in software engineering education. Specific discussion topics will include new strategies for successful industry/university collaboration, exploration of reasons why some of the old strategies no longer work, and regional/geographical differences noted by the international set of panelists. The panel hopes to identify new promising strategies for such collaborations. Specific industry representatives will be invited to attend and participate in the discussion.

This paper describes a software assurance competency model that can be used by individual professionals to improve their software assurance skills. It can also be used by universities to align course content with skills needed in industry, and it can be used by industry to help employee professional growth as well as to screen prospective employees. The knowledge and skill areas in the competency model are based on the Master of Software Assurance reference curriculum that has been previously approved by the IEEE Computer Society and ACM. The model is aligned with a similar effort by the IEEE Professional Activities Board to develop a competency model for software engineering practitioners.

This paper traces the history of the International Requirements Engineering Conference from its beginnings as the International Symposium on Requirements Engineering and the International Conference on Requirements Engineering. The history is tracked to the present, with suggestions for future considerations, such as more emphasis on systems requirements engineering, and enhanced practitioner participation. Other requirements engineering events and activities are also discussed. A timeline of major milestones is included, along with a brief discussion of requirements engineering research activities that occurred in parallel with the conference.

Nearly every facet of modern society depends heavily on highly complex software systems. The business, energy, transportation, education, communication, government, and defense communities rely on software to function, and software is an intrinsic part of our personal lives. Teaching software assurance and secure coding practices are significant challenges currently facing computer science educators. The Strawman version of the CS2013 curricular volume recognizes this vital need and has included a new knowledge area to specifically address software and information assurance in undergraduate computer science education. Also recognizing the importance of the software assurance discipline for protecting national infrastructures and systems, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified the growing need for skilled practitioners in this area. At the direction of the DHS, the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University initiated the Software Assurance Curriculum Project. Session leaders will share curricular materials from this project and will facilitate active discussion centered on infusing software assurance into introductory computer science courses at two-year and four-year colleges and universities. The latest curricular volume published September 2011 will be distributed at the session and includes a review of related curricula, outcomes and body of knowledge, expected background of target audiences, and outlines of six courses. These curricular materials are also available online at www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/11tr017.cfm.

This paper describes three educational initiatives in support of software assurance education. The first project attempted to identify and document any knowledge, from any source, that could be related to the assurance of software. The second initiative focuses on the development of a master of software assurance reference curriculum. The third initiative implements the reference curriculum as two tracks within a Master of Science in Software Engineering program.

The legislative penalties and economic penalties for privacy violations are more serious for a service provider these days. In spite of demonstrating that it is willing and able to protect the privacy of information, a service provider developing a privacy-compliant system faces two challenges; technical complexities and legal complexities. In this paper, we propose a computer-aided privacy requirements elicitation technique (PRET) that helps software developers elicit privacy requirements more efficiently in the early stages of software development. The goal of the PRET tool is to accelerate the elicitation process and prevent privacy requirements leaks by using a general privacy requirements database derived from privacy laws and empirical privacy requirements. We also show the results of integrating the PRET tool with the security quality requirements engineering (SQUARE) methodology and provide evidence of the efficacy of the resultant tool.

Our interest in software assurance extends from critical infrastructure to finance to manufacturing, and almost everything in between. Yet, if you look at our computing curricula, you will find almost no attention to this topic at the undergraduate level, and the fact is that many in the field of computing do not go on to receive advanced degrees. Until we recognize this need, as educators, our curricula will continue to fall short, and our critical systems will be subject to attacks, break-ins, and compromises, resulting in financial loss, loss of credibility, and even more grave consequences.

Globalization and the attendant demands on multicultural teams have placed new emphasis on ensuring that software engineering students understand the real impacts of social and cultural differences on software engineering work. Cultural differences have specific impacts because our own values are innate. This blind spot can be an extreme hazard when it comes to delivering software that functions properly, is on time and on budget.This paper will present the details of an educational program designed to sensitize software engineers to cultural differences by cultural immersion. It will explain how the program addressed four areas of software engineering work that are susceptible to cross cultural influences, 1) process primitives, 2) abstract representation, 3) oversight and control and 4) optimization.

This paper provides a roadmap for addressing security requirements on projects using an agile approach. The Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) is used as an example framework for development. Security quality requirements engineering (SQUARE) is used as an example methodology to address security issues early in the development life cycle. SQUARE can be more effective when it fits into an organization's existing development process. Hence this paper describes a way to fit the SQUARE methodology into the DSDM framework.

In this talk wepsilall trace the history of software engineering education and focus on some of the key players. Although the time has gone by quickly, it is more than 20 years since the first CSEE was held, and there have been many changes. Wepsilall highlight the work that we have accomplished in the areas of degree programs and curricula, conferences and working groups, professionalism, certification, and industry-university collaboration. Wepsilall also look at the challenges that lie ahead-the global reach of education, new delivery mechanisms, new professional efforts, and the need for us to engage in leadership in software engineering education. What new approaches should we be considering? How can we maintain our vitality? How can we best nurture new educators and encourage others to join our profession?

This study identifies the places where software assurance knowledge best fits with the elements of a standard software engineering curriculum. This is useful because there is currently no common understanding of the places in a traditional software engineering curriculum where software assurance should be taught. It would appear that the recommendations of the DHS CBK can be justified as a basis for teaching software engineering concepts for developing secure and assured software.

The question that this panel will explore is the feasibility of specialization within software engineering degree programs, particularly at the undergraduate level. Over the years of software engineering curriculum development, we have seen good success in implementation of both undergraduate and graduate degree programs. We have also seen that some universities and students have shown an interest in specialization within these degree programs.

This paper summarizes the relationship between the specifications of the software assurance common body of knowledge (CBK) and the curricula of software engineering, computer science, and information systems. It identifies where various CBK elements fit within each curriculum and it provides recommendations for additional study based on those findings.

Software engineering curricula too often neglect the development of security requirements for software systems. As a consequence, programmers often produce buggy code with weak security measures. This report focuses on three case studies in which graduate students applied a novel security requirements engineering methodology to real-world software development projects. The experiences showed promise for curriculum integration in educating students about the importance of security requirements in software engineering, as well as how to develop such requirements

Production of software is growing at a phenomenal rate worldwide. In addition, the increasingly global business climate has accelerated the need for business software. There are too few software engineers to produce and maintain software to meet this demand. One possible solution to correcting this shortfall is reeducating existing non-software employees to become software engineers. For the past two years, the Industry/University (UU) subgroup of the Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training (WGSEET) has been investigating active collaborations between companies and universities in which employees without formal software education are reeducated to become software engineers. This paper reports on our findings by discussing our approach to the investigation, outlining the factors involved in successful collaboration construction and execution, and describing alumni views of the knowledge and skills transferred by the collaboration.

A critical issue in software engineering is how to construct high assurance software systems, i.e., software Systems where compelling evidence is required that the system delivers its services in a manner satisfying critical properties, such as safety and security. This two-day XSE workshop, the third in a series of workshops on high assurance systems, will provide a forum for researchers and practitioners to exchange ideas and experiences relevant to the development of software for aerospace systems, medical systems, systems controlling nuclear power plants, and other critical systems. Participants of the SEHAS 2003 workshop will explore the opportunities for, and benefits of, synergies between three important themes-product, process, and profiling-each theme reflecting an important aspect of software development for high assurance systems.

This panel addresses the question of how to make the business case for requirements engineering, a subject of interest to all requirements engineering practitioners and many researchers. The panel co-chairs and panelists are all either requirements engineering practitioners or consultants with a practical viewpoint. This session is intended to address the major issues associated with making the business case for requirements engineering, and to provide practitioners with the ammunition they need to effect change.

Agile software development methodologies claim to be superior for adapting to the changing needs of customers and projects and to the people on the team. As a result, these methodologies are steadily gaining interest and popularity in industry. Some examples of agile methodologies are Extreme Programming, Feature-Driven Development, Scrum, and Win-Win Spiral. Each of these processes comprises a set of practices, some of which are currently considered best practices and are consistent with what is taught in software engineering courses today. Other practices, however, are controversial and run contrary to the focus of most curricular materials. As educators, we must assess the academic and technical values of emerging technologies and, if convinced of their worthiness, we owe it to our students to integrate them into our curricula.

S.665-668

This workshop provides a forum for discussing the current state of the software engineering discipline. Position on software engineering issues and problems are presented by participants with experience and perspective from industry, government and academia.

No abstract available.

The 12th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T '99), held immediately before SIGCSE '99 in New Orleans, continued 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 the improvement of software engineering education and training.CSEE&T '99 focused on a different theme each day:• Professional Issues• Training Curricula and Distance Education• Undergraduate and Graduate CurriculaCSEE&T '99 also included several half-day workshops designed to provide a forum participants to exchange opinions on topics on software engineering research and practice, and related education and training issues.This panel will report on the activities of CSEE&T '99 for the benefit of those at SIGCSE that could not attend both conferences. Some of the issues related to CSEE&T '99 that will be addressed by the panelists:• Current trends in software engineering education that were presented;• The status of the development of software engineering as a discipline, especially with regard to curriculum models, accreditation, and licensing, and how that may affect computer science programs;• Good pedagogical techniques/tools/projects that were identified;• Areas of controversy concerning software engineering that were addressed;• Areas that were discussed where software engineering education needs improvement; and• Reasons why it would be beneficial for SIGCSE attendees to also attend CSEE&T in future years.CSEE&T was first held in 1987, and was then called the Conference on Software Engineering Education. It has been held annually since that time, except for a one-year skip in 1993. Until 1992, the conference was located in Pittsburgh, and is now held in various parts of the United States. In 1997, the name of the conference was changed to the Conference on Software Education and Training, to reflect the growing interest in training and industry/university collaboration issues at the conference.CSEE&T was originally sponsored by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University. In 1996, SEI and the IEEE Computer Society jointly sponsored the conference, with IEEE-CS taking over complete sponsorship in 1997. The conference is still partially supported by the SEI, and is held in cooperation with ACM SIGCSE. (The conference has been held in the same city immediately before the SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science Education since 1998.) When under SEI sponsorship, the conference chairs and most of the program committee were associated with the institute, while the organizers of the conference are now drawn from the entire software engineering education and training community. The Conference Proceedings were originally published by Springer-Verlag, and since 1996 by IEEE-CS.

In this panel, we will address questions on software engineering education that are voted on by the conference attendees in advance of the session. A sample set of questions will be posted. Conference attendees who will then vote on the questions to be addressed by the panel will augment these. After the panellists provide answers to a given question, the discussion will be opened up for follow-up questions or comments by the conference attendees.

The issues associated with licensing and certification of software engineers are difficult. At present, there is no agreed-to body of knowledge on which to base certification. Some state legislatures are attempting to regulate the practice of software engineering without adequate understanding of the field. As a result of safety-critical software disasters, some professionals believe that licensing or certification is inevitable, so the software community had better figure out how to do it before someone else does it for them. In this paper, we survey the state of the practice of licensing and certification in other professions, identify the issues that might be encountered in attempting to license and certify software engineers, and suggest possible actions that could be taken by the profession. We discuss the implications of licensing or certification for education.

A panel discussion is presented on some of the design methods that can be used to support Ada software maintainability. It is noted that design documentation often does not accurately reflect the code, and those most familiar with the code's structure may not be available for consultation. The challenge is to overcome these common constraints with a combination of well-designed software, project development methods, and support from the development environment. This design and implementation of the code can have a significant impact on future software maintenance activities. Another major factor is the development process that the maintenance team uses along with management policies that govern this process. Software changes must be effectively tracked and accumulated with the documentation for the next release. A staged, layered, introduction to design and implementation that can assist the maintenance process is also presented. The four refinement levels and their focus are given.>