Walking the talk: building quality into the software quality management tool

Seshagiri, Girish; Priya, S. Shanmuga

doi:10.1109/qsic.2003.1319087

Cited by 1 publication

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the validity of this strategy, in terms [120], [122], [124], [125], [128], [129], [133], [135], [138], [139], [142], [144], [145], [147], [150], [152], [154]- [156], [160], [165], [168]- [170], [173], [179], [180], [182], [183], [185], [187], [188], [190]- [192], [195]- [197], [200], [201], [204], [209], [210], [215], [216], [219], [221], [225], [226], [228]- [230], [237]- [241], …”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[120], [127]- [129], [131], [137], [138], [141]- [143], [146], [152], [155], [159], [160], [163], [165], [167], [168], [175], [176], [181], [187], [192], [195], [197]- [199], [201]- [204], [211]- [214], [218], [224], [228], [231], [232], [234], [237], [240], [241], [248], [249], [251], [253], [256], [257], [259]- [261], [265], [266] 57 Estimation Accuracy…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionunclassified

“…[119]- [122], [125], [136], [139]- [141], [143], [144], [149], [152]- [154], [157], [159]- [161], [163], [167], [169], [170], [172], [176]- [178], [183], [185]- [187], [189], [191], [194], [195], [204]- [206], [211], [219], [221], [222], [225]- [227], [229], [237], [238], [240], [243], [255]- [257], [262], [265], [266] 56 Productivity The performance of the development team in terms of its efficiency in delivering the required output.…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[119], [120], [127], [140], [147], [152], [154], [158], [161], [166], [170], [177], [196], [197], [200], [202], [206], [217], [218], [225], [229], [237], [244], [245], [247], [256], [262], [263] 47 (28 + Table 10 Effort The effort of the development team in developing the product.…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Estimation accuracy: In Table 11 the success indicators for estimation accuracy are shown. It is interesting that estimating quality seems very uncommon although the improvement of quality is one of the main interests of [122], [143], [144], [149], [153], [154], [157], [159], [161], [163], [167], [169], [172], [177], [178], [183], [185], [186], [189], [191], [194], [195], [211], [219], [221], [225], [226], [237], [238], [240], [251], [256], [257], [262], [265], [266] 37/0.66…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Unterkalmsteiner

Gorschek

Islam

et al. 2012

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

244

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND-Software Process Improvement (SPI) is a systematic approach to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of a software development organization and to enhance software products. OBJECTIVE-This paper aims to identify and characterize evaluation strategies and measurements used to assess the impact of different SPI initiatives. METHOD-The systematic literature review includes 148 papers published between 1991 and 2008. The selected papers were classified according to SPI initiative, applied evaluation strategies and measurement perspectives. Potential confounding factors interfering with the evaluation of the improvement effort were assessed. RESULTS-Seven distinct evaluation strategies were identified, whereas the most common one, "Pre-Post Comparison", was applied in 49% of the inspected papers. Quality was the most measured attribute (62%), followed by Cost (41%) and Schedule (18%). Looking at measurement perspectives, "Project" represents the majority with 66%. CONCLUSION-The evaluation validity of SPI initiatives is challenged by the scarce consideration of potential confounding factors, particularly given that "Pre-Post Comparison" was identified as the most common evaluation strategy, and the inaccurate descriptions of the evaluation context. Measurements to assess the short and mid-term impact of SPI initiatives prevail, whereas long-term measurements in terms of customer satisfaction and return on investment tend to be less used.

show abstract