Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

An experience-based framework for evaluating alignment of software quality goals

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Efficient quality management of software projects requires knowledge of how various groups of stakeholders involved in software development prioritize the product and project goals. Agreements or disagreements among members of a team may originate from inherent groupings, depending on various professional or other characteristics. These agreements are not easily detected by conventional practices (discussions, meetings, etc.) since the natural language expressions are often obscuring, subjective, and prone to misunderstandings. It is therefore essential to have objective tools that can measure the alignment among the members of a team; especially critical for the software development is the degree of alignment with respect to the prioritization goals of the software product. The paper proposes an experience-based framework of statistical and graphical techniques for the systematic study of prioritization alignment, such as hierarchical cluster analysis, analysis of cluster composition, correlation analysis, and closest agreement-directed graph. This framework can provide a thorough and global picture of a team’s prioritization perspective and can potentially aid managerial decisions regarding team composition and leadership. The framework is applied and illustrated in a study related to global software development where 65 individuals in different roles, geographic locations and professional relationships with a company, prioritize 24 goals from individual perception of the actual situation and for an ideal situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barney, S., Mohankumar, V., Chatzipetrou, P., Aurum, A., Wohlin, C., & Angelis, L. (2014). Software quality across borders: Three case studies on company internal alignment. Information and Software Technology, 56(1), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, S., & Wohlin, C. (2008). Software product quality questionnaire. http://www.bth.se/tek/aps/sba.

  • Barney, S., & Wohlin, C. (2009a). Software product quality definitions. http://sebseb.info/files/icsp2009-definitions.pdf.

  • Barney, S., & Wohlin, C. (2009b). Software product quality: Ensuring a common goal. In Q. Wang, R. Madachy, & D. Pfahl (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on software process (ICSP), pp. 256–267.

  • Barney, S., & Wohlin, C. (2010). Alignment of software product quality goals in two outsourcing relationships. In Proceedings of the14th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (EASE).

  • Barney, S., Wohlin, C., Chatzipetrou, P., & Angelis, L. (2011). Offshore insourcing: A case study on software quality alignment. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE international conference on global software engineering, pp. 146–155.

  • Berander, P, & Jönsson, P. (2006a). A goal question metric based approach for efficient measurement framework definition. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering (ISESE ‘06), pp. 316–325.

  • Berander, P., & Jönsson, P. (2006b). Hierarchical cumulative voting (HCV)—Prioritization of requirements in hierarchies. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 16(6), 819–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B., & Ross, R. (1989). Theory-w software project management principles and examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(7), 902–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Y. E. (2002). Why haven’t we mastered alignment? The importance of the informal organization structure. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1(2), 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Y. E., & Reich, B. H. (2007). IT alignment: An annotated bibliography. Journal of Information Technology, 22(4), 316–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzipetrou, P., Angelis, L., Barney, S., & Wohlin, C. (2011). Software product quality in global software development: Finding groups with aligned goals. In Proceedings of the 37th EUROMICRO conference on IEEE, software engineering and advanced applications (SEAA).

  • Chatzipetrou, P., Angelis, L., Rovegård, P., & Wohlin, C. (2010). Prioritization of issues and requirements by cumulative voting: A compositional data analysis framework. In Proceedings of 36th EUROMICRO conference on software engineering and advanced applications (SEAA).

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conchúir, E. Ó., Ågerfalk, P. J., Olsson, H. H., & Fitzgerald, B. (2009). Global software development: Where are the benefits? Communications of the ACM, 52, 127–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian, D. (2007). Stakeholders in global requirements engineering: Lessons learned from practice. Software, IEEE, 24(2), 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian, D. E., & Zowghi, D. (2003). RE challenges in multi-site software development organisations. Requirements Engineering, 8(3), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 135–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 9126. (2001). Software engineering-product quality-part 1: Quality model. International Standards Organization.

  • Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leffingwell, D., & Widrig, D. (2003). Managing software requirements: A use case approach (2nd ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, E. F., & Spital, F. C. (2003). Managing project portfolios. Research-Technology Management, 46(3), 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, L. (2004). Consider the outsource. Software Development Times, 100, 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinjani, P., & Palvia, P. (2013). Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Information and Management, 50(4), 144–153.

  • Rovegård, P., Angelis, L., & Wohlin, C. (2008). An empirical study on views of importance of change impact analysis issues. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(4), 516–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahay, S., Nicholson, B., & Krishna, S. (2003). Global IT outsourcing: Software development across borders. MIT Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0521816041.

  • Sheskin, D. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Chapman & Hall/CRC: 3. 2004.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Šmite, D., Wohlin, C., Galviņa, Z., & Prikladnicki, R. (2014). An empirically based terminology and taxonomy for global software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 19(1), 105–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šmite, D., Wohlin, C., Gorschek, T., & Feldt, R. (2010). Empirical evidence in global software engineering: A systematic review. Empirical Software Engineering, 15(1), 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloníki, Greece

    Panagiota Chatzipetrou & Lefteris Angelis

  2. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden

    Sebastian Barney & Claes Wohlin

  3. School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Sebastian Barney

Authors
  1. Panagiota Chatzipetrou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lefteris Angelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastian Barney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claes Wohlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lefteris Angelis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chatzipetrou, P., Angelis, L., Barney, S. et al. An experience-based framework for evaluating alignment of software quality goals. Software Qual J 23, 567–594 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-014-9251-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-014-9251-5

Keywords