Abstract
Effective management of a portfolio of software projects may include ranking them with respect to various qualitative criteria. Diversity of projects in terms of their size, maturity and domain poses additional requirements for adopting a quality evaluation process. At first, to provide a convincing argumentation for project improvements, it is important to extract relevant quality features. Secondly, strong and weak aspects of a project could be identified by showing their relevance compared to other projects. In the paper we present experiences from applying a method of ranking software projects based on practical cases. We discuss the relevancy of features used for comparison and analyze various aggregation methods used for comparing projects of similar nature.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ferenc, R., Hegedűs, P., Gyimóthy, T.: Software product quality models. In: Mens, T., Serebrenik, A., Cleve, A. (eds.) Evolving Software Systems, pp. 65–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Spinellis, D.: Software reliability redux. IEEE Softw. 34(4), 4–7 (2017)
Kazman, R.: Software engineering. Computer 50(7), 10–11 (2017)
Washizaki, H.: Pitfalls and countermeasures in software quality measurements and evaluations. In: Advances in Computers, vol. 107, pp. 1–22. Elsevier (2017)
De Camargo, K., Curcio, A.M., Reinehr, S., Paludo, M.: An analysis of the factors determining software product quality: a comparative study. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 48, 10–18 (2016)
Bilicki, V., Golub, I., Vuletic, P., Wolski, M.: Failure and success - how to move toward successful software development in Networking. In: Terena Networking Conference (2014)
Wolski, M., Golub, I., Frankowski, G., Radulovic, A., Berus, P., Medard, S., Kupiński, S., Apfel, T., Nowak, T., Visconti, S., Smud, I., Mazar, B., Marovic, B., Promiński, P.: Deliverable D8.1 service validation and testing process. Technical report 691567 (2016)
Wolski, M., Walter, B., Kupiński, S., Chojnacki, J.: Software quality model for a research-driven organization - an experience report. J. Softw. Evol. Process 30(5), e1911 (2017)
Wolski, M., Walter, B., Kupinski, S., Prominski, P., Golub, I.: GN4-1 white paper: supporting the service validation and testing process in the GÉANT project. Technical report 691567 (2016)
Nagappan, M., Zimmermann, T., Bird, C.: Diversity in software engineering research. In: Proceedings of 2013 9th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2013, pp. 466–476 (2013)
Capiluppi, A., Lago, P., Morisio, M.: Characteristics of open source projects. In: Proceedings of 7th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2003), Benevento, Italy, 26–28 March 2003, p. 317 (2003)
Baggen, R., Correia, J.P., Schill, K., Visser, J.: Standardized code quality benchmarking for improving software maintainability. Softw. Qual. J. 20(2), 287–307 (2012)
Alves, T.L., Ypma, C., Visser, J.: Deriving metric thresholds from benchmark data. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM (2010)
Yamashita, A.: Experiences from performing software quality evaluations via combining benchmark-based metrics analysis, software visualization, and expert assessment. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2015, October 2015, pp. 421–428 (2015)
Zhang, F., Mockus, A., Zou, Y., Khomh, F., Hassan, A.E.: How does context affect the distribution of software maintainability metrics? In: IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM, pp. 350–359 (2013)
Petrinja, E., Nambakam, R., Sillitti, A.: Introducing the OpenSource maturity model. In: 2009 ICSE Workshop on Emerging Trends in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research and Development, pp. 37–41, May 2009
Deprez, J.C., Alexandre, S.: Comparing assessment methodologies for free/open source software: OpenBRR and QSOS. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (LNCS), vol. 5089, pp. 189–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Ray, B., Posnett, D., Filkov, V., Devanbu, P.T.: A large scale study of programming languages and code quality in GitHub categories and subject descriptors. In: FSE 2014 (2014)
Ferreira, K.A.M., Bigonha, A.S., Bigonha, R.S., Mendes, L.F.O., Almeida, H.C.: Identifying thresholds for object-oriented software metrics. J. Syst. Softw. 85(2), 244–257 (2012)
Onoue, S., Hata, H., Monden, A., Matsumoto, K.: Investigating and projecting population structures in open source software projects: a case study of projects in GitHub. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E99D(5), 1304–1315 (2016)
Acknowledgements
GÉANT Limited on behalf of the GN4-2 project. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 731122 (GN4-2).
This work is financed from financial resources for science in the years 2016–2018 granted for the realization of the international project co-financed by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Chojnacki, J., Mazurek, C., Walter, B., Wolski, M. (2019). How Good Is My Project? Experiences from Projecting Software Quality Using a Reference Set. In: Kosiuczenko, P., Zieliński, Z. (eds) Engineering Software Systems: Research and Praxis. KKIO 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 830. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99617-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99617-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99616-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99617-2
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)