Question Title

* 1. Was the PLAK model effective in providing the means for specifying flexibility and variability in the development of the “power quality monitoring and a remote control and smart metering” platform?

The goal of the following questions is to analyze how useful is traceability from requirements (feature) to PLA at the time of configuring products:

Question Title

* 2. Was the Feature-PLA Traceability model (later known as PLAK model) effective in providing the means for specifying traceability of the variability for data storing?

Question Title

* 3. Was the Feature-PLA Traceability model (later known as PLAK model) effective in providing the means for specifying traceability of the variability for availability?

Question Title

* 4. Did the Feature-PLA Traceability model (later known as PLAK model) assist and guide you at the time of configuring the product A (i.e. a metering management system running over Berkeley DB and Hadoop, which has to be strictly available 24/7)?

Question Title

* 5. Did the Feature-PLA Traceability model (later known as PLAK model) assist and guide you at the time of configuring the product B (i.e. a metering management system running over Oracle 11g DB and RAC, which has to be available 24/7 but it is possible to relax this restriction)?

The goal of the following questions is to analyze the coupling and cohesion of the components that make up the OPTIMETER architecture in two cases:
(i) using the variability mechanism of PPCs (see Figure 1)
(ii) without using them (see Figure 2)
Consider these two models that offer different solutions to implement the clustering:

Question Title

Figure 1

Figure 1

Question Title

Figure 2

Figure 2

Question Title

* 6. In your opinion, what is the best solution?

Question Title

* 7. Please, provide evidence that demonstrate why one solution is better than the other

Question Title

* 8. Was the PLAK model of Sprint 1 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 2?

Question Title

* 9. Was the PLAK model of Sprint 2 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 3?

Question Title

* 10. Was the PLAK model of Sprint 3 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 4?

Question Title

* 11. Was the PLAK model of Sprint 4 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 5?

Question Title

* 12. Was the PLAK model of Sprint 5 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 6?

Question Title

* 13. Was the change-impact knowledge resulting from analyzing the working architecture of Sprint 1 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 2?

Question Title

* 14. Was the change-impact knowledge resulting from analyzing the working architecture of Sprint 2 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 3?

Question Title

* 15. Was the change-impact knowledge resulting from analyzing the working architecture of Sprint 3 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 4?

Question Title

* 16. Was the change-impact knowledge resulting from analizing the working architecture of Sprint 4 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 5?

Question Title

* 17. Was the change-impact knowledge resulting from analizing the working architecture of Sprint 5 useful for implementing the feature increments (or changes in features) required in Sprint 6?

T