Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Software Quality Models

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software reliability is increasingly important in today's marketplace. When traditional software development processes fail to deliver the level of reliability demanded by customers, radical changes in software development processes may be needed. Business process reengineering (BPR) is the popular term for comprehensive redesign of business processes. This paper focuses on the business processes that produce commercial software, and illustrates the central role that models have in implementation of BPR. Software metrics and software-quality modeling technology enable reengineering of software development processes, moving from a static process model to a dynamic one that adapts to the expected quality of each module. We present a method for cost-benefit analysis of BPR of software development processes as a function of model accuracy. The paper defines costs, benefits, profit, and return on investment from both short-term and long-term perspectives. The long-term perspective explicitly accounts for software maintenance efforts. A case study of a very large legacy telecommunications system illustrates the method. The dependent variable of the software-quality model was whether a module will have faults discovered by customers. The independent variables were software product and process metrics. In an example, the costs and benefits of using the model are compared to using random selection of modules for reliability enhancement. Such a cost-benefit analysis clarifies the implications of following model recommendations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, A.F., Buchwald, L.S., and Lewski, F.H. 1989. Software inspections: An effective verification process, IEEE Software 6(3):31-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biazzo, S. 1998. A critical examination of the business process re-engineering phenomenon, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 18(9/10): 1000-1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N.E. and Pfleeger, S.L. 1997. Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd ed., London, PWS Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, M. 1990. Reengineering work: don't automate, obliterate, Har. Bus. Rev. 68(4): 104-112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, M. and Champy, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York, Harper-Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D.W., Jr. and Lemeshow, S. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression, New York, John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudepohl, J.P. 1990. Measurement of software service quality for large telecommunications systems, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 8(2):210-218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudepohl, J.P., Aud, S.J., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Allen, E.B., and Mayrand, J. 1996. EMERALD: software metrics and models on the desktop, IEEE Software 13(5): 56-60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudepohl, J.P., Snipes, W., Hollack, T., and Jones, W. 1992. A methodology to improve switching system software service quality and reliability. Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf., pp. 1671-1678.

  • Jones, C. 1996. Software defect-removal efficiency, Computer 29(4): 94-95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T.M. and Allen, E.B. 1998. Classification of fault-prone software modules: prior probabilities, costs, and model evaluation, Empirical Software Eng. Int. J. 3(3): 275-298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T.M. and Allen, E.B. 2000. A practical classification rule for software quality models, IEEE Trans. Reliability 49(2): 209-216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Allen, E.B., Halstead, R., Trio, G.P., and Flass, R. 1998. Process measures for predicting software quality, Computer 31(4): 66-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, P., Porter, A., Siy, H., and Votta, L.G. 1996. An experiment to assess cost-benefits of inspection meetings and their alternatives. Proc. Third Int. Software Metrics Symp., Berlin.

  • Motwani, J., Kumar, A., Jiang, J., and Youssef, M. 1998. Business process reengineering: a theoretical framework and an integrated model, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 18(9/10: 964-977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orman, L.V. 1998. A model management approach to business process reengineering, J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 15(1): 187-212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seber, G.A.F. 1977. Linear Regression Analysis, New York, John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

    Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar

  2. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA

    Edward B. Allen

  3. Nortel Networks, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    Wendell D. Jones & John P. Hudepohl

Authors
  1. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward B. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wendell D. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John P. Hudepohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Allen, E.B., Jones, W.D. et al. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Software Quality Models. Software Quality Journal 9, 9–30 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016621219262

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016621219262

Search

Navigation