short-paper

Measuresoftgram: a future vision of software product quality

Authors:

Hilmer Rodrigues Neri,

Guilherme Horta TravassosAuthors Info & Claims

ESEM '18: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

Article No.: 54, Pages 1 - 4

https://doi.org/10.1145/3239235.3267438

Published: 11 October 2018 Publication History

Abstract

<u>Background:</u> Software product quality assurance affects the acceptance of releases. The one dimensional observational perspective of current software product quality (SPQ) models constrains their use in continuous software engineering environments. <u>Aims:</u> To investigate multidimensional relationships between software product characteristics and build an evidence-based infrastructure to observe SPQ continuously. <u>Method:</u> To mine and manipulate datasets regarding software development and use. Next, to perform multidimensional analytical SPQ interpretations to observe quality. <u>Results:</u> There is empirical evidence on the multidimensionality linkage of quality characteristics throughout the software life cycle. <u>Conclusions:</u> The one-dimensional quality perspective is not enough to observe the SPQ in continuous environments. Alternative mathematical abstractions should be investigated.

References

[1]

McCall, J.A. & Richards P.K. & Walters G.F, Factors in Software Quality, Volumes I, II, and III. US Rome Air Development Center Reports, US Department of Commerce, USA, 1977.

[2]

Miguel J.P. & Mauricio D. & Rodrigues G., A review of software quality models for the evaluation of software products. IJSEA, 2014

[3]

Henningsson K. & Wohlin C., Understanding the relations between software quality attributes - a survey approach. In Proceedings of 12th ICSQ, 2002

[4]

Haoues M. & Sellami A. & Ben-Abdallah H. & Cheikhi L., A guideline for software architecture selection based on ISO 25010 quality-related characteristics, IJSAEM, 2017.

[5]

Fitzgerald B. & K.J. Stol., Continuous software engineering: A roadmap and agenda, JSS, 2017.

[6]

Boehm B. W., Characteristics of Software Quality, Volume 1, TRW Series, North-Holand, 1978.

[7]

Aldaajeh S. & Asghar T. & Abed A.K. & Zakaullah M., Communing Different Views on Quality Attributes Relationships' Nature. EJSR, 2012.

[8]

Svahnberg M. & Henningsson K., Consolidating different views of quality attribute relationships, WoSQ@ICSE, 2009.

Digital Library

[9]

Dybå T. & Dingsøyr T., Agile Project Management: From Self-Managing Teams to Large-Scale Development, ICSE, 2015.

[10]

Poppendieck M. & Poppendieck T., Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash, (The Addison-Wesley Signature Series), 2006.

Digital Library

[11]

Debois P., DevOps: A software revolution in the making, JITM, 2011.

[12]

Kohavi R. & Longbotham R. & Walker T., Online Experiments: Practical Lessons, IEEE Computer, 2010.

Digital Library

[13]

Fagerholm F. & Sanchez G. A. & Mäenpää H. & Münch, J, The RIGHT model for Continuous Experimentation. JSS, 2017.

[14]

Fabijan A. & Dmitrie P. & Olsson H. & Bosch J., The Evolution of Continuous Experimentation in Software Product Development, ICSE, 2017.

Digital Library

[15]

Schermann G. & Cito J. & Leitner P. & Zdun U. & Gall H. C. We're Doing It Live: A Multi-Method Empirical Study on Continuous Experimentation, IST, 2018.

[16]

Buse R.P.L. & Zimmermann T., Analytics for software development, FoSER, 2010.

Digital Library

[17]

Menzies T. & Zimmermann T. Software Analytics: So What?, IEEE Software, 2013.

Digital Library

[18]

Lima E.L., Tensorial Calculus, Vol. 32 de Math Notes, IMPA, 1965

[19]

Juristo N. and Moreno A.M., Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation, Springer Publishing, 2010.

Digital Library

[20]

Wohlin C. & Runeson P. & Host M. & Ohlsson M.C., Regnell B. & Wessln A., Experimentation in Software Engineering, Springer Publishing, 2012.

Digital Library

[21]

Buse R.P.L. & Zimmermann T., Information needs for software development analytics. ICSE, 2012.

Digital Library

[22]

Fenton N. & Bieman J., Software Metrics-A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 3th, CRC Press, 2014.

Digital Library

[23]

Kitchenham B., What's up with software metrics? - A preliminary mapping study, JSS, 2010.

Digital Library

[24]

Lavazza L. & Morasca S., An Empirical Evaluation of Distribution-based Thresholds for Internal Software Measures, PROMISE, 2016.

Digital Library

[25]

Dybå T. & Sjøberg D. & Cruzes D., What works for whom, where, when, and why? On the role of context in empirical software engineering, ESEM, 2012.

Digital Library

[26]

Bosch J., Building products as innovation experiment systems, LNBIP, 2013

[27]

Ouhbi, S. et al., Evaluating Software Product Quality: A Systematic Mapping Study, IWSM-MENSURA, 2014

Digital Library

[28]

Mordal-Manet K. et al., The squale model - A Practice-Based Industrial Quality Model, ICSM, 2009

[29]

Wagner S. et al., The quamoco product quality modeling and assessment approach, ICSE, 2012

Digital Library

[30]

Siavvas M. G. et al., QATCH - An adaptive framework for software product quality assessment, ESWA Journal, 2017

Cited By

Naqvi BSeffah AAbran A(2020)Framework for examination of software quality characteristics in conflict: A security and usability exemplarCogent Engineering10.1080/23311916.2020.17883087:1(1788308)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2020.1788308
Aghabayli APfahl DMartínez-Fernández STrendowicz ASentilles SBoehm BTrubiani CKoziolek A(2019)Integrating runtime data with development data to monitor external quality: challenges from practiceProceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Software Qualities and Their Dependencies10.1145/3340495.3342752(20-26)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3340495.3342752

Index Terms

Measuresoftgram: a future vision of software product quality
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management

Recommendations

Software Quality is Multidimensional: Let's play with Tensors
SBES '20: Proceedings of the XXXIV Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering

In the face of the dynamic nature of modern software systems, the quality of software products must be monitored and assured from different perspectives at the same time and throughout the development cycle. Although different characteristics and ...
Quantifying software architecture quality report on the first international workshop on software architecture metrics

Architects of complex software systems face the challenge of how best to assess the achievement of quality attributes and other key drivers, how to reveal issues and risks early, and how to make decisions about architecture improvement. Software ...
Toward Simpler, not Simplistic, Quantification of Software Architecture and Metrics: Report on the Second International Workshop on Software Architecture and Metrics

Architects of complex software systems face the challenge of how best to assess the achievement of quality attributes and other key system drivers, how to reveal issues and risks early, and how to make decisions about architecture improvement. Software ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ESEM '18: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

October 2018

487 pages

ISBN:9781450358231

DOI:10.1145/3239235

General Chair:
Markku Oivo
University of Oulu, Finland
,
Program Chairs:
Daniel Méndez
Technical University of Munich, Germany
,
Audris Mockus
University of Tennessee

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

In-Cooperation

IEEE CS

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 October 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper

Conference

ESEM '18

Sponsor:

SIGSOFT

ESEM '18: ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

October 11 - 12, 2018

Oulu, Finland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 130 of 594 submissions, 22%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
176
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)3
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Naqvi BSeffah AAbran A(2020)Framework for examination of software quality characteristics in conflict: A security and usability exemplarCogent Engineering10.1080/23311916.2020.17883087:1(1788308)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2020.1788308
Aghabayli APfahl DMartínez-Fernández STrendowicz ASentilles SBoehm BTrubiani CKoziolek A(2019)Integrating runtime data with development data to monitor external quality: challenges from practiceProceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Software Qualities and Their Dependencies10.1145/3340495.3342752(20-26)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3340495.3342752

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents