A Study on Metrics for Supporting the Software Process Improvement Based on SPICE

Hwang, Sun-Myung; Kim, Hye-Mee

doi:10.1007/11668855_6

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[122]- [124], [127], [130], [134], [135], [139]- [141], [143], [146], [149], [157], [161], [163], [168]- [170], [172], [177], [182], [183], [185]- [187], [191], [196], [199], [200], [204]- [206], [208], [216], [217], [219], [220], [222], [223], [227], [229], [233], [238], [239], [245], [247], [250], [255], [262], [264], [265] 52…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionunclassified

“…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%

“…[121], [127], [128], [136], [145], [147], [150], [152], [159], [165], [167], [169], [174], [180], [183], [188], [190], [191], [195], [197], [204], [208], [216], [219], [227], [229]- [231], [240], [242], [244], [247]- [249], [251], [253], [256], [257], [259], [261], [265] 41 Defects This success indicator is to group metrics that are solely intended to measure the defects without relating them to quality.…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[121], [157], [158], [161], [166], [168], [177], [185], [186], [189], [194], [202], [207]- [209], [211], [217], [232], [238], [257] 20 Customer Satisfaction (Quantitative) [129], [143], [145], [183], [207], [211], [262] 7…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[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%

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

Section: Analysis and Discussionunclassified

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 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

show abstract

Software process certification system based on K‐model for high‐performance software engineering

Hwang

Yeo

2012

Concurrency and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYIn order to make high-quality software and high-performance software, systematic development management and organizational support should be essentially considered. Since the 1990s software process models such as ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI have been used to improve and evaluate an organization's capability. However, these models have problems that are used to apply on large-scale organizations or large projects and hence many practices are actually required that eventually do not supply systematic metrics for process measuring. In this paper, we present the characteristics of the K-model which can easily be applied to small-and medium-sized businesses or projects, and propose the standard metrics based on the K-model for measuring quantitative quality values. We also formally define a K-model-based certificate procedure.

show abstract

Metrics Design for Software Process Assessment Based on ISO/IEC 15504

Hwang

Yeom

2006

Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Study on Metrics for Supporting the Software Process Improvement Based on SPICE

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

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

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

Software process certification system based on K‐model for high‐performance software engineering

Metrics Design for Software Process Assessment Based on ISO/IEC 15504

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About