PRIORITIZATION OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS - A COQUALMO-based Case Study and Derived Decision Support Scheme

Arne Beckhaus, Lars M. Karg, Christian A. Graf, Michael Grottke, Dirk Neumann

2009

Abstract

Quality assurance has always been a major concern for software engineers. While a lot of work has been devoted to technical quality assurance aspects, its economics have rarely been addressed. This is remarkable in the light of the current endeavor of the software industry to learn from more mature industries and to adapt their ‘lean’ and process improvement philosophies. We advance this debate by proposing a decision support scheme. It facilitates the selection and prioritization of quality assurance activities for improvement initiatives. The prioritizing order is based on the expected quality gains in terms of reduced number of defects in the software product. Our scheme supports managers in their decision process, as shown in three industrial case studies. It can be instantiated with low data-collection effort because it makes use of calibration data and model characteristics of COQUALMO.

References

  1. Antony, J. and Fergusson, C. (2004). Six sigma in the software industry: results from a pilot study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19:1025-1032.
  2. Basili, V. and Caldiera, G. (1995). Improve software quality by reusing knowledge and experience. Sloan Management Review, 37(1):55-64.
  3. Boehm, B., Abts, C., Brown, A., Chulani, S., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Riefer, D., and Steece, B. (2000). Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall.
  4. Boehm, B. W. (1981). Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall.
  5. Chulani, S. (1999). COQUALMO (COnstructive QUAlity MOdel) a software defect density prediction model. In Kusters, Cowderoy, Heemstra, and van Veenendaal, editors, Project Control for Software Quality. Shaker Publishing.
  6. Chulani, S. and Boehm, B. (1999). Modeling software defect introduction and removal: COQUALMO (COnstructive QUALity MOdel). Technical report, Technical Report USC-CSE-99-510, University of Southern California, Center for Software Engineering.
  7. Chulani, S., Steece, B. M., and Boehm, B. (2003). Case Studies in Reliability and Maintenance, chapter Determining Software Quality Using COQUALMO, pages 293-311. Wiley.
  8. DeMarco, T. (1982). Controlling Software Projects: Management, Measurement and Estimation. Yourdon Press, New York.
  9. Deming, W. E. (2000). Out of the Crisis. MIT Press.
  10. Dyba, T. (2005). An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in software process improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(5):410-424.
  11. El Emam, K., Drouin, J.-N., and Melo, W., editors (1998). SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. CS Press.
  12. Fenton, N. and Pfleeger, S. (1996). Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. Int'l Thomson Computer Press, London.
  13. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (2003). Reengineering the Corporation. A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Collins Business.
  14. Jones, C. (1975). Programming defect removal. In Proceedings, GUIDE 40.
  15. Jones, C. (2008). Applied Software Measurement: Global Analysis of Productivity and Quality. McGraw-Hill, 3rd edition.
  16. Middleton, P. and Sutton, J. (2005). Lean Software Strategies. Productivity Press.
  17. NIST (2002). The economic impacts of inadequte infrastructure for software quality.
  18. Olson, T. G., Humphrey, W. S., and Kitson, D. (1989). Conducting SEI-assisted software process assessments. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, Technical Report CMU/SEI-89-TR-7, Pittsburgh.
  19. Rifkin, S. (2001). What makes measuring software so hard? IEEE Software, 18(3):41-45.
  20. Stelzer, D. and Mellis, W. (1998). Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 4(4):227-250.
  21. van Solingen, R. and Berghout, E. (1999). The Goal/Question/Metric Method: A Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development. McGraw-Hill, London.
  22. Whittaker, J. A. and Voas, J. M. (2002). 50 years of software: Key principles for quality. IT Pro, Nov/Dec:28- 35.
  23. Womack, J. P. and Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean Thinking. Free Press, 2nd edition.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Beckhaus A., M. Karg L., A. Graf C., Grottke M. and Neumann D. (2009). PRIORITIZATION OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS - A COQUALMO-based Case Study and Derived Decision Support Scheme . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 1: ICSOFT, ISBN 978-989-674-009-2, pages 139-144. DOI: 10.5220/0002243801390144


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icsoft09,
author={Arne Beckhaus and Lars M. Karg and Christian A. Graf and Michael Grottke and Dirk Neumann},
title={PRIORITIZATION OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS - A COQUALMO-based Case Study and Derived Decision Support Scheme},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 1: ICSOFT,},
year={2009},
pages={139-144},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002243801390144},
isbn={978-989-674-009-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 1: ICSOFT,
TI - PRIORITIZATION OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS - A COQUALMO-based Case Study and Derived Decision Support Scheme
SN - 978-989-674-009-2
AU - Beckhaus A.
AU - M. Karg L.
AU - A. Graf C.
AU - Grottke M.
AU - Neumann D.
PY - 2009
SP - 139
EP - 144
DO - 10.5220/0002243801390144