Towards an Agile Approach to Software Process Improvement: Addressing the Changing Needs of Software Products

This paper highlights the need for greater agility and flexibility in the process improvement activity. The ideas presented here relate to aspects that have arisen from a case study of a global software product organisation. A model of how software process improvement can be agile in nature is proposed. This model is intended as indicative of the issues that need consideration by IS management. The model highlights the need to learn to improve through situated practice within an organisational framework that supports the needs of the business

Model-based approaches to support process improvement in complex product development

The performance of product development processes is important to the commercial success of new products. The improvement of these processes is thus a strategic imperative for many engineering companies — the aero-engine is one example of a complex product for which market pressures necessitate ever-shorter development times. This thesis argues that process modelling and simulation can support the improvement of complex product development processes. A literature review identified that design process modelling is a well-established research area encompassing a diverse range of approaches. However, most existing tools and methods are not widely applied in industry. An extended case study was therefore conducted to explore the pragmatic utility of process modelling and simulation. It is argued that iteration is a key driver of design process behaviour which cannot be fully reflected in a mechanistic model. Understanding iteration can help select an appropriate representation for a given process domain and modelling objective. A model-based approach to improve the management of iterative design processes was developed. This approach shows that design process simulation models can support practice despite their limited fidelity. The modelling and simulation framework resulting from this work was enhanced for application to a wider range of process improvement activities. A robust and extensible software platform was also developed. The framework and software tool have made significant contribution to research projects investigating process redesign, process robustness and process optimisation. These projects are discussed to validate the framework and tool and to highlight their applicability beyond the original approach. The research results were disseminated in academia and industry — 72 copies of the software were distributed following requests in the first three months of its release

A holistic method for improving software product and process quality

The concept of quality in general is elusive, multi-faceted and is perceived differently by different stakeholders. Quality is difficult to define and extremely difficult to measure. Deficient software systems regularly result in failures which often lead to significant financial losses but more importantly to loss of human lives. Such systems need to be either scrapped and replaced by new ones or corrected/improved through maintenance. One of the most serious challenges is how to deal with legacy systems which, even when not failing, inevitably require upgrades, maintenance and improvement because of malfunctioning or changing requirements, or because of changing technologies, languages, or platforms. In such cases, the dilemma is whether to develop solutions from scratch or to re-engineer a legacy system. This research addresses this dilemma and seeks to establish a rigorous method for the derivation of indicators which, together with management criteria, can help decide whether restructuring of legacy systems is advisable. At the same time as the software engineering community has been moving from corrective methods to preventive methods, concentrating not only on both product quality improvement and process quality improvement has become imperative. This research investigation combines Product Quality Improvement, primarily through the re-engineering of legacy systems; and Process Improvement methods, models and practices, and uses a holistic approach to study the interplay of Product and Process Improvement. The re-engineering factor rho, a composite metric was proposed and validated. The design and execution of formal experiments tested hypotheses on the relationship of internal (code-based) and external (behavioural) metrics. In addition to proving the hypotheses, the insights gained on logistics challenges resulted in the development of a framework for the design and execution of controlled experiments in Software Engineering. The next part of the research resulted in the development of the novel, generic and, hence, customisable Quality Model GEQUAMO, which observes the principle of orthogonality, and combines a top-down analysis of the identification, classification and visualisation of software quality characteristics, and a bottom-up method for measurement and evaluation. GEQUAMO II addressed weaknesses that were identified during various GEQUAMO implementations and expert validation by academics and practitioners. Further work on Process Improvement investigated the Process Maturity and its relationship to Knowledge Sharing, resulted in the development of the I5P Visualisation Framework for Performance Estimation through the Alignment of Process Maturity and Knowledge Sharing. I5P was used in industry and was validated by experts from academia and industry. Using the principles that guided the creation of the GEQUAMO model, the CoFeD visualisation framework, was developed for comparative quality evaluation and selection of methods, tools, models and other software artifacts. CoFeD is very useful as the selection of wrong methods, tools or even personnel is detrimental to the survival and success of projects and organisations, and even to individuals. Finally, throughout the many years of research and teaching Software Engineering, Information Systems, Methodologies, I observed the ambiguities of terminology and the use of one term to mean different concepts and one concept to be expressed in different terms. These practices result in lack of clarity. Thus my final contribution comes in my reflections on terminology disambiguation for the achievement of clarity, and the development of a framework for achieving disambiguation of terms as a necessary step towards gaining maturity and justifying the use of the term “Engineering” 50 years since the term Software Engineering was coined. This research resulted in the creation of new knowledge in the form of novel indicators, models and frameworks which can aid quantification and decision making primarily on re-engineering of legacy code and on the management of process and its improvement. The thesis also contributes to the broader debate and understanding of problems relating to Software Quality, and establishes the need for a holistic approach to software quality improvement from both the product and the process perspectives

A framework to assist in the assessment and tailoring of agile software development methods

University of Technology, Sydney. Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology.The innovative well-known agile methods offer many powerful agile software development practices and have received considerable attention from both practitioners as well as the research community. While many organizations are interested in adopting agile methods suitable to their local circumstances, there is little guidance available on how to do so. Organizations, especially on the large-scale, currently lack systematic support for adopting agile methods in their complex software development settings. To address this important issue, this research proposes an agile software solution framework (ASSF) to both assistance in the assessment of the capability of the organization or team and tailoring of agile method in order to support the systematic adoption and improvement of agility in both agile and, incidentally, non-agile software development environments - especially formal and large environments. The ASSF has been incrementally developed by the iterative application of build, review and adjust research activities, which is called here a “qualitative empirical” research method. The ASSF is intended for use by agile coaches and consultants as a comprehensive information guide. The ASSF has two main components: framework characteristics and lifecycle management. The framework characteristics component incorporates 10 main elements or attributes to describe the agile-hybrid software development methodologies: (1) people (2) process, (3) product, (4) tools, (5) agility, (6) abstraction, (7) business value, (8) policy (9) rules and (10) legal. The framework lifecycle management component specifies the stages, practices and resources in order to support the systematic adoption and improvement of agility. The framework stages refer to an agility adoption and improvement lifecycle, its practices refer to an agility adoption and improvement process, and its resources refer to models, templates and toolkit that can be used during the agility adoption and improvement process such as the contextual analysis model, a key agility indicators index, an agility adoption and improvement model, an agility adoption and improvement scorecard, and an agile toolkit. The components of this framework have been empirically analysed and reviewed by experts from industry as well as the research community, and updated based on the feedback received. The results of this research indicated that the proposed ASSF framework may be considered reasonable for a gradual successful transition or adoption of agile practices in formal and large software development environments

The adoption of software process improvement (SPI) program in the construction industry

Integrating the design process and automating the construction process are called for in the Industrialised Building System (IBS) Roadmap 2003-2010 and the Construction Industry Master Plan (CIMP) 2006-2015. Hence, the industry needs to improve the construction delivery process by having as many processes utilizing advanced IT/ICT technologies. With a goal of producing zero product failure and meeting the users’ requirement satisfaction, this is an initial study into automating the construction tasks by studying a systematic process management commonly used for software implementation. We present a feasibility study on the use of a Software Process Improvement (SPI) Program in an IT organization—assuming that the construction organization will become an implementer of computer-integrated procedures in the future. Based on a case study conducted at a local IT software company, it documents the implementation of a SPI program to improve the internal software process development. The study uses the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) from Software Engineering Institute as SPI framework and IDEAL model-SPI life cycle model for executing and managing SPI program. Results show that the SPI Program model is successful in terms of the IT organization increasing its work productivity, high end-user product satisfaction and reduction of software defects. The paper concludes with discussions on how we can bridge computer science approach into the construction industry, thereby contributing to the development of future theoretical and application methodologies towards applying IT/ICT initiatives in the local construction industry

Analysis of Maturity Level Project Management of Software Development In Scrum Framework: Case Research On Tribe Enterprise PT. XYZ

One of the most widely used product developments now is Agile Development Method. In Agile Development there are several frameworks, one of them is Scrum. This research examines the maturity level of software development project management that applies Scrum framework. The research was conducted using quantitative research methodologies using Scrum Maturity Model. Data was collected by distributing questionnaires to employees at a company that works as a Scrum Master. In addition to the data obtained from the questionnaire, interviews were also conducted to confirm answers from respondents. The interview aims to ensure the answers given by respondents are consistent with documentary evidence carried out through the research of project documents. Then the data analysis is done by assessing the level of maturity of each process in the Scrum framework using Agile Maturity Model (AMM) approach. The results from the analysis of Maturity Level Project Management of Software Development are used to provide recommendations for improvement to achieve a higher level of maturity

Navigating The Leading Edge: A Prototype Curriculum for Software Systems Management

This article presents a meaningful and advantageous new direction for information technology education, embodying principles for systematically optimizing the functioning of the business. Our curriculum was built on the thesis that every aspect of software systems management can be understood and described as a component of four universal, highly correlated behaviors: abstraction, product creation, product verification and validation, and process optimization. Given this, our model curriculum was structured to provide the maximum exposure to current best practice in six thematic areas, which taken together as an integrated set, makes-up the attributes that differentiate us from the other computer disciplines: Abstraction: understanding and description of the problem space Design: models for framing artifact to meet criteria 3, 4, 5, and 6 Process Engineering: application of large models such as IEEE 12207 Organizational Control Systems: SQA and configuration management Evaluation with Measurement: with an emphasis on testing and metrics Construction: professional programming languages with emphasis on reusability Our teaching strategy approaches this as a hierarchy of similar activities. In every course we require the student to define and implement all three interfaces and be able to clearly communicate this as a logically consistent model before working out the details of the solution. The focus of all understanding is top-down from the information interface. Our curriculum centers on the application of software engineering standards (such as those promulgated by IEEE) and the software process improvement, or quality standards (such as those promulgated by SEI and ISO) under the assumption that this embodies the common body of knowledge and state of best practice in software production and management. The practical realization of this is an integration of the large subject areas of: software engineering (methods, models and criteria), process and product quality management (software quality assurance and metrics), software project management (work decomposition, planning, sizing and estimating), and software configuration management. Reconciliation of project and configuration management is accomplished by cross-referencing the problems, tools, notations and solutions (through explicit identification, authorization and validation procedures). As a side agenda, we have also stressed the need for re-engineering the vast number of software products currently on the shelves. This model plus germane simulated real-world experience introduces all of the relevant principles to the student within the (currently understood) framework. It allows them to develop and internalize their own comprehensive understanding and formulate a personal model of the disciplinary body of knowledge

A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines

[EN] It is widely accepted that software measures provide an appropriate mechanism for understanding, monitoring, controlling, and predicting the quality of software development projects. In software product lines (SPL), quality is even more important than in a single software product since, owing to systematic reuse, a fault or an inadequate design decision could be propagated to several products in the family. Over the last few years, a great number of quality attributes and measures for assessing the quality of SPL have been reported in literature. However, no studies summarizing the current knowledge about them exist. This paper presents a systematic literature review with the objective of identifying and interpreting all the available studies from 1996 to 2010 that present quality attributes and/or measures for SPL. These attributes and measures have been classified using a set of criteria that includes the life cycle phase in which the measures are applied; the corresponding quality characteristics; their support for specific SPL characteristics (e. g., variability, compositionality); the procedure used to validate the measures, etc. We found 165 measures related to 97 different quality attributes. The results of the review indicated that 92% of the measures evaluate attributes that are related to maintainability. In addition, 67% of the measures are used during the design phase of Domain Engineering, and 56% are applied to evaluate the product line architecture. However, only 25% of them have been empirically validated. In conclusion, the results provide a global vision of the state of the research within this area in order to help researchers in detecting weaknesses, directing research efforts, and identifying new research lines. In particular, there is a need for new measures with which to evaluate both the quality of the artifacts produced during the entire SPL life cycle and other quality characteristics. There is also a need for more validation (both theoretical and empirical) of existing measures. In addition, our results may be useful as a reference guide for practitioners to assist them in the selection or the adaptation of existing measures for evaluating their software product lines. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.This research has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under the MULTIPLE (Multimodeling Approach For Quality-Aware Software Product Lines) project with ref. TIN2009-13838.Montagud Gregori, S.; Abrahao Gonzales, SM.; Insfrán Pelozo, CE. (2012). A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines. Software Quality Journal. 20(3-4):425-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9146-7S425486203-4Abdelmoez, W., Nassar, D. M., Shereschevsky, M., Gradetsky, N., Gunnalan, R., Ammar, H. H., et al. (2004). Error propagation in software architectures. In 10th international symposium on software metrics (METRICS), Chicago, Illinois, USA.Ajila, S. A., & Dumitrescu, R. T. (2007). Experimental use of code delta, code churn, and rate of change to understand software product line evolution. Journal of Systems and Software, 80, 74–91.Aldekoa, G., Trujillo, S., Sagardui, G., & Díaz, O. (2006). Experience measuring maintainability in software product lines. In XV Jornadas de Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD). Barcelona.Aldekoa, G., Trujillo, S., Sagardui, G., & Díaz, O. (2008). Quantifying maintanibility in feature oriented product lines, Athens, Greece, pp. 243–247.Alves de Oliveira Junior, E., Gimenes, I. M. S., & Maldonado, J. C. (2008). A metric suite to support software product line architecture evaluation. In XXXIV Conferencia Latinamericana de Informática (CLEI), Santa Fé, Argentina, pp. 489–498.Alves, V., Niu, N., Alves, C., & Valença, G. (2010). Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Information & Software Technology, 52(8), 806–820.Bosch, J. (2000). Design and use of software architectures: Adopting and evolving a product line approach. USA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Briand, L. C., Differing, C. M., & Rombach, D. (1996a). Practical guidelines for measurement-based process improvement. Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 2, 253–280.Briand, L. C., Morasca, S., & Basili, V. R. (1996b). Property based software engineering measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Eng., 22(1), 68–86.Calero, C., Ruiz, J., & Piattini, M. (2005). Classifying web metrics using the web quality model. Online Information Review, 29(3): 227–248.Chen, L., Ali Babar, M., & Ali, N. (2009). Variability management in software product lines: A systematic review. In 13th international software product lines conferences (SPLC), San Francisco, USA.Clements, P., & Northrop, L. (2002). Software product lines. 2003. Software product lines practices and patterns. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Crnkovic, I., & Larsson, M. (2004). Classification of quality attributes for predictability in component-based systems. Journal of Econometrics, pp. 231–250.Conference Rankings of Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (CORE). (2010). Available in http://core.edu.au/index.php/categories/conference%20rankings/1 .Davis, A., Dieste, Ó., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., & Moreno, A. M. (2006). Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. In 14th IEEE international conference requirements engineering, pp. 179–188.de Souza Filho, E. D., de Oliveira Cavalcanti, R., Neiva, D. F. S., Oliveira, T. H. B., Barachisio Lisboa, L., de Almeida E. S., & de Lemos Meira, S. R. (2008). Evaluating domain design approaches using systematic review. In 2nd European conference on software architecture, Cyprus, pp. 50–65.Ejiogu, L. (1991). Software engineering with formal metrics. QED Publishing.Engström, E., & Runeson, P. (2011). Software product line testing—A systematic mapping study. Information & Software Technology, 53(1), 2–13.Etxeberria, L., Sagarui, G., & Belategi, L. (2008). Quality aware software product line engineering. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 14(1), Campinas Mar.Ganesan, D., Knodel, J., Kolb, R., Haury, U., & Meier, G. (2007). Comparing costs and benefits of different test strategies for a software product line: A study from Testo AG. In 11th international software product line conference, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 74–83, September 2007.Gómez, O., Oktaba, H., Piattini, M., & García, F. (2006). A systematic review measurement in software engineering: State-of-the-art in measures. In First international conference on software and data technologies (ICSOFT), Setúbal, Portugal, pp. 11–14.IEEE standard for a software quality metrics methodology, IEEE Std 1061-1998, 1998.Inoki, M., & Fukazawa, Y. (2007). Software product line evolution method based on Kaizen approach. In 22nd annual ACM symposium on applied computing, Korea.Insfran, E., & Fernandez, A. (2008). A systematic review of usability evaluation in Web development. 2nd international workshop on web usability and accessibility (IWWUA’08), New Zealand, LNCS 5176, Springer, pp. 81–91.ISO/IEC 25010. (2008). Systems and software engineering. Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). System and software quality models.ISO/IEC 9126. (2000). Software engineering. Product Quality.Johansson, E., & Höst, R. (2002). Tracking degradation in software product lines through measurement of design rule violations. In 14th International conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering, Ischia, Italy, pp. 249–254.Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters. (2010). Available in http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/ .Khurum, M., & Gorschek, T. (2009). A systematic review of domain analysis solutions for product lines. The Journal of Systems and Software.Kim, T., Ko, I. Y., Kang, S. W., & Lee, D. H. (2008). Extending ATAM to assess product line architecture. In 8th IEEE international conference on computer and information technology, pp. 790–797.Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Version 2.3, EBSE Technical Report, Keele University, UK.Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., & Fenton, N. (1995). Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(12).Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.Mendes, E. (2005). A systematic review of Web engineering research. International symposium on empirical software engineering. Noosa Heads, Australia.Meyer, M. H., & Dalal, D. (2002). Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for non assembled products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(4), 277–293.Montagud, S., & Abrahão, S. (2009). Gathering Current knowledge about quality evaluation in software product lines. In 13th international software product lines conferences (SPLC), San Francisco, USA.Montagud, S., & Abrahão, S. (2009). A SQuaRE-bassed quality evaluation method for software product lines. Master’s thesis, December 2009 (in Spanish).Needham, D., & Jones, S. (2006). A software fault tree metric. In 22nd international conference on software maintenance (ICSM), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.Niemelä, E., & Immonen, A. (2007). Capturing quality requirements of product family architecture. Information and Software Technology, 49(11–12), 1107–1120.Odia, O. E. (2007). Testing in software product lines. Master Thesis Software Engineering of School of Engineering, Bleking Institute of Technology. Thesis no. MSE-2007:16, Sweden.Olumofin, F. G., & Mišić, V. B. (2007). A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 49, 309–323.Pérez Lamancha, B., Polo Usaola, M., & Piattini Velthius, M. (2009). Software product line testing—a systematic review. ICSOFT, (1), 23–30.Poels, G., & Dedene, G. (2000). Distance-based software measurement: necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology, 42(I), 35–46.Prehofer, C., van Gurp, J., & Bosch, J. (2008). Compositionality in software platforms. In Emerging methods, technologies and process management in software engineering. Wiley.Rahman, A. (2004). Metrics for the structural assessment of product line architecture. Master Thesis on Software Engineering, Thesis no. MSE-2004:24. School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden.Sethi, K., Cai, Y., Wong, S., Garcia, A., & Sant’Anna, C. (2009). From retrospect to prospect: Assessing modularity and stability from software architecture. Joint working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture, 2009 & European conference on software architecture. WICSA/ECSA.Shaik, I., Abdelmoez, W,. Gunnalan, R., Shereshevsky, M., Zeid, A., Ammar, H. H., et al. (2005). Change propagation for assessing design quality of software architectures. 5th working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (WICSA’05).Siegmund, N., Rosenmüller, M., Kuhlemann, M., Kästner, C., & Saake, G. (2008). Measuring non-functional properties in software product lines for product derivation. In 15th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference, Beijing, China.Sun Her, J., Hyeok Kim, J., Hun Oh, S., Yul Rhew, S., & Dong Kim, S. (2007). A framework for evaluating reusability of core asset in product line engineering. Information and Software Technology, 49, 740–760.Svahnberg, M., & Bosch, J. (2000). Evolution in software product lines. In 3rd international workshop on software architectures for products families (IWSAPF-3). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.Van der Hoek, A., Dincel, E., & Medidović, N. (2003). Using services utilization metrics to assess the structure of product line architectures. In 9th international software metrics symposium (METRICS), Sydney, Australia.Van der Linden, F., Schmid, K., & Rommes, E. (2007). Software product lines in action. Springer.Whitmire, S. (1997). Object oriented design measurement. John Wiley & Sons.Wnuk, K., Regnell, B., & Karlsson, L. (2009). What happened to our features? Visualization and understanding of scope change dynamics in a large-scale industrial setting. In 17th IEEE international requirements engineering conference.Yoshimura, K., Ganesan, D., & Muthig, D. (2006). Assessing merge potential of existing engine control systems into a product line. In International workshop on software engineering for automative systems, Shangai, China, pp. 61–67.Zhang, T., Deng, L., Wu, J., Zhou, Q., & Ma, C. (2008). Some metrics for accessing quality of product line architecture. In International conference on computer science and software engineering (CSSE), Wuhan, China, pp. 500–503

Enterprise information security policy assessment - an extended framework for metrics development utilising the goal-question-metric approach

Effective enterprise information security policy management requires review and assessment activities to ensure information security policies are aligned with business goals and objectives. As security policy management involves the elements of policy development process and the security policy as output, the context for security policy assessment requires goal-based metrics for these two elements. However, the current security management assessment methods only provide checklist types of assessment that are predefined by industry best practices and do not allow for developing specific goal-based metrics. Utilizing theories drawn from literature, this paper proposes the Enterprise Information Security Policy Assessment approach that expands on the Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) approach. The proposed assessment approach is then applied in a case scenario example to illustrate a practical application. It is shown that the proposed framework addresses the requirement for developing assessment metrics and allows for the concurrent undertaking of process-based and product-based assessment. Recommendations for further research activities include the conduct of empirical research to validate the propositions and the practical application of the proposed assessment approach in case studies to provide opportunities to introduce further enhancements to the approach