Carlos Henrique C. Duarte
ABSTRACT
Quality assurance methods based on software process im- provement models have been regarded as a main source of variability in software productivity. In this paper, we investi- gate the relationship between labor productivity and quality assurance levels, using a data set containing more than 500 Brazilian software rms. We perform statistical analyses relating labor productivity, as measured through the annual gross revenue per worker ratio, to quality levels, whose ma- turity was examined in appraisals performed from 2006 to 2012 according to two distinct software process improvement models (CMMI and MPS.BR). As a preparatory step to our ndings, we investigate the relationship between these mod- els. We show that CMMI and MPS.BR appraised maturity levels are correlated, but we nd no statistical evidence that the implemented quality assurance methods are related to higher labor productivity or productivity growth.
- Barry W. Boehm. Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, 1981. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Barry W. Boehm. Improving software productivity. Computer, 20(9):43–57, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mary B. Chrissis, Mike Konrad, and Sandy Shrum. CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlos Henrique C. Duarte. Moving software to a global platform. IEEE Spectrum, 33(7):40–43, July 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlos Henrique C. Duarte. Brazil: Cooperative development of a software industry. IEEE Software, 19(3):84–87, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlos Henrique C. Duarte. A decade of continued support to the information and communication technology sector in Brazil: The most relevant events and the role of BNDES. Revista do BNDES, 19(37):91–126, 2012. In Portuguese.Google Scholar
- Carlos Henrique C. Duarte and Carlos Eduardo C. Branco. Social and economic impacts of the brazilian policy for information technologies. Revista do BNDES, 15:125–146, 2001. In Portuguese.Google Scholar
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Measuring Productivity: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-Level Productivity Growth. 2001.Google Scholar
- Tony Gorschek and Alan Davis. Requirements engineering: In search of the dependent variables. Information and Software Technology, 50(1-2):67–75, January 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zvi Griliches. Productivity, R&D and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. The American Economic Review, 76(1):141––154, March 1986.Google Scholar
- James D. Herbsleb and Dennis R. Goldenson. A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. In Proc. 18th International Conference on Software engineering (ICSE’96), pages 323–330. IEEE Computer Society, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- CMMI Institute. Published appraisal results {Online}, 2013. Available: https://sas.cmmiinstitute.com/pars/pars.aspx.Google Scholar
- Capers Jones and Olivier Bonsignour. The Economics of Software Quality. Addison-Wesley, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcos Kalinowski et al. From software engineering research to brazilian software quality improvement. In Proc. 15th Brazilian Software Engineering Symposium (SBES’2011), 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mike Konrad and Sandy Shrum. CMMI for development: version 1.3. SEI series in software engineering. Addison-Wesley, 3rd edition, 2011.Google Scholar
- Mayuram S. Krishnan, Charles H. Kriebel, Sunder Kekre, and Tridas Mukhopadhyay. An empirical analysis of productivity and quality in software products. Management Science, 46(6):745–759, June 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mariano A. Montoni, Ana R. Rocha, and Kival C. Weber. MPS.BR: a successful program for software process improvement in Brazil. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 14(5):289–300, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark C. Paulk, Charles V. Weber, Bill Curtis, and Mary B. Chrissis. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving Software Processes. Addison-Wesley, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harvey P. Siy et al. Making the software factory work: Lessons from a decade of experience. In Proc. 7th International Symposium on Software Metrics (METRICS’01), pages 317–326. IEEE Computer Society, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Softex Society. MPS.BR evaluations {Online}, 2013. Available: http://www.softex.br/mpsbr.Google Scholar
- Mark Staples et al. An exploratory study of why organizatons do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6):883–895, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- On the relationship between quality assurance and productivity in software companies
Recommendations
Benchmarking software development productivity of CMMI level 5 projects
In this paper, data envelopment analysis variable returns to scale (DEA VRS) model is applied to data collected on 79 software development projects from a leading CMMI level 5 organization. We divide overall software effort into software development ...
Productivity paradoxes revisited
The adoption of quality assurance methods based on software process improvement models has been regarded as an important source of variability in software productivity. Some companies perceive that their implementation has prohibitive costs, whereas ...
Defining Agile Software Quality Assurance
ICSEA '06: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering AdvancesAgile software development methodologies have since their inception claimed to improve the quality of the software product. The agile practitioners have also claimed that use of the agile approach has greatly improved the quality of their products. ...
Comments