Abstract
Introduction
The established philosophy within the software development industry is that an organization implementing a program to improve software quality can expect to recoup the cost of the implementation many times over through the reduced cost associated with improvements in quality. Measurement initiatives are perceived to provide a key contribution to quality improvement as evidenced by the focus of early measurement based initiatives and the place of measurement in the higher echelons of process initiatives. In general, organizations pursue measurement initiatives from a perspective that, without measurement, control is not possible. While organizations recognize that there are potential benefits to measuring their processes and products, however, they typically find it difficult to structure ad-hoc measures into a formal program -- a situation that is compounded by the significant cost of implementing such programs. Although these problems have led to some organizations moving away from measurement programs, many companies still use measurement programs as illustrated by the continued interest in, for example, the Capability Maturity Model. Given the appetite and potential returns on investment of measurement frameworks and initiatives, ways of successfully implementing them are important.
With that importance in mind, this work evaluates the implementation of such a measurement framework in a major Insurance organization. A hybrid model -- practitioner-based -- was devised to incorporate the best aspects of current approaches and mitigate identified shortcomings. In order to continually improve software quality, research was conducted to understand the critical success factors in implementing software measurement programs, develop a measurement framework to address the critical success factors, implement a pilot program based on that framework, and reflect on the outcomes of implementation for future practice. We examine existing measurement frameworks in order to assess the critical success factors and the relative strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches in relation to those factors and describe the model that results from the outcomes of the analysis of strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches. Later, we describe the implementation of a pilot of the model in an established IT department and evaluate the success of the pilot and the implications for the state-of-the-art.
- Basili, V.R. and Rornbach, H.D. The TAME project: Towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14, 6, (1988) 758--773.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dekkers, C.A. and McQuaid, P.A. The dangers of using software metrics to (Mis)manage. IT Professional 4, 2, (2002) 24--30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Demarco, T. Controlling software projects: Management, measurement & estimation. Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982.Google Scholar
- Fenton, N.E. and Pfleeger A.L. Software metrics: A rigorous & practical approach, 2nd Edition. PWS Publishing. 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fenton, N.E. and Neil, M. Software metrics: Successes, failures and new directions. Journal of Systems and Software 47, 2-3, (1999) 149--157 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grady, R.B. and Caswell D.L. Software Metrics: Establishing A Company-Wide Program. Prentice-Hall. 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hall, T. and Fenton, N. Implementing effective software metrics programs. IEEE Software 14, 2, (1997) 55--65. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hetzel, W.C., Making Software Measurement Work - Building an Effective Measurement Program. QED Publishing Group, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pfleeger, S.L. Maturity, models, and goals: How to build a metrics plan. Journal of Systems and Software 31, 2, (1995) 143--155. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pulford, K., Kuntzrnann-Cornbelles, A. and Shirlaw S. A Quantitative Approach to Software Management: The AMI Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rainer, A. and Hall, T. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting software processes. Journal of Systems and Software 66, 1, (2003) 7--21. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Practitioner-based measurement: a collaborative approach
Recommendations
Do agile GSD experience reports help the practitioner?
GSD '06: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Global software development for the practitionerAgile software development has steadily gained momentum and acceptability as a viable approach to software development. As software development continues to take advantage of the global market, agile methods are also being attempted in geographically ...
MIS-PyME software measurement capability maturity model - Supporting the definition of software measurement programs and capability determination
One important reason for the failure of measurement program implementation is that the maturity of companies as regards measurement has not been taken into account during the definition phase. Unfortunately, the major methods and frameworks that support ...
Cross-factor analysis of software engineering practices versus practitioner demographics
More experienced practitioners experience more challenges in SE phases and tasks.Almost 55% of participants measure software size.Agile development is used the least by participants in military and defense sector.Agile is favored by participants in ...
Comments