Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMacDonell, Stephenen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorGray, Andrewen_NZ
dc.date.available2011-04-07T03:05:58Z
dc.date.copyright1996-09en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationMacDonell, S., & Gray, A. (1996). Software process engineering for measurement-driven software quality programs—realism and idealism (Information Science Discussion Papers Series No. 96/19). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/990en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/990
dc.description.abstractThis paper brings together a set of commonsense recommendations relating to the delivery of software quality, with some emphasis on the adoption of realistic perspectives for software process/product stakeholders in the area of process improvement. The use of software measurement is regarded as an essential component for a quality development program, in terms of prediction, control, and adaptation as well as the communication necessary for stakeholders’ realistic perspectives. Some recipes for failure are briefly considered so as to enable some degree of contrast between what is currently perceived to be good and bad practices. This is followed by an evaluation of the quality-at-all-costs model, including a brief pragmatic investigation of quality in other, more mature, disciplines. Several programs that claim to assist in the pursuit of quality are examined, with some suggestions made as to how they may best be used in practice.en_NZ
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherUniversity of Otagoen_NZ
dc.relation.ispartofseriesInformation Science Discussion Papers Seriesen_NZ
dc.subject.lcshQA76 Computer softwareen_NZ
dc.titleSoftware process engineering for measurement-driven software quality programs—realism and idealismen_NZ
dc.typeDiscussion Paperen_NZ
dc.description.versionUnpublisheden_NZ
otago.bitstream.pages17en_NZ
otago.date.accession2011-01-24 22:59:39en_NZ
otago.schoolInformation Scienceen_NZ
otago.openaccessOpen
otago.place.publicationDunedin, New Zealanden_NZ
dc.identifier.eprints1067en_NZ
otago.school.eprintsSoftware Metrics Research Laboratoryen_NZ
otago.school.eprintsInformation Scienceen_NZ
dc.description.referencesami (ami Consortium) (1995). ami - Application of Metrics in Industry, ami Consortium, London. Arthur, J.D., Nance, R.E., and Balci, O. (1993). Establishing Software Development Process Control: Technical Objectives, Operational Requirements, and the Foundational Framework. Journal of Systems and Software 22: 117-128. Bell Canada (1994). Trillium: Model for Telecom Product Development and Support Process Capability. Bell Canada, Quebec, 1994. Bootstrap Project Team (1993). Bootstrap: Europe’s Assessment Method. IEEE Software May: 93-95. Campbell, M. (1995). Tool Support for Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination: Changing the Paradigm of Assessment. Software Process Newsletter 4: 12-15. Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., and Over, J. (1992). Process Modeling. Communications of the ACM 35(9): 75-90. Curtis, B., Hefley, W.E., Miller, S., and Konrad, M. (1995). The People-CMM. Software Process Newsletter 4: 7-10. DeMarco, T. (1982). Controlling Software Projects. Yourdon, New York. Debou, C., Liptak, J., and Schippers, H. (1994). Decision Making for Software Process Improvement: A Quantitative Approach. Journal of Systems and Software 26: 43-52. Denning, P.J. (1992). Editorial - What is Software Quality? Communications of the ACM 35(1): 13-15. Dion, R. (1995). Starting the Climb Towards the CMM Level 2 Plateau. Software Process Newsletter 4: 1-2. Dorling, A. (1993). SPICE: Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. Information and Software Technology 35(6/7): 404-406. Goldenson, D.R., and Herbsleb, J.D. (1995). After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-009, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh. Gottesdiener, E. (1996). What Is Your Development Maturity? Application Development Trends March: 60-73. Hayes, W., and Zubrow, D. (1995). Moving On Up: Data and Experience Doing CMM-Based Process Improvement. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-008, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh. Herbsleb, J., Carleton, A., Rozum, J., Siegel, J., and Zubrow, D. (1994). Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Results. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-14, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh. Hollom, J.H., and Pulford, K.J. Experience of Software Measurement Programmes and Application of the ami Method Within GEC. GEC Journal of Research 12(1): 17-25. Hon, S.E. III, (1990). Assuring Software Quality through Measurements: A Buyer’s Perspective. Journal of Systems and Software 13: 117-130. Humphrey, W.S. (1996). Using a Defined and Measured Personal Software Process. IEEE Software May: 77-88. Huyink, D., and Westover, C. (1994). ISO 9000. Irwin, New York. Jeffery, R., and Berry, M. (1993). A Framework for Evaluation and Prediction of Metrics Program Success. In Proceedings of the First International Software Metrics Symposium, Baltimore MA, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 28-39. Johnson, J. (1995). Chaos: The Dollar Drain of IT Project Failures. Application Development Trends January: 41-47. Jones, C. (1995). Patterns of Large Software Systems: Failure and Success. Computer March: 86-87. Jones, C. (1996). The Pragmatics of Software Process Improvements. Software Process Newsletter 5: 1-4. Juran, J.M. (1979). “Basic Concepts” in Quality Control Handbook, ed. Juran, J.M., Gryna, F.M., and Bingham, F.M., 3rd Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 2-5. Keil, M. (1995). Pulling the Plug: Software Project Management and the Problem of Project Escalation. MIS Quarterly December: 421-447. King, S., and Galliers, R. (1994). Modelling the CASE Process: Empirical Issues and Future Directions. Information and Software Technology 36(10): 587-596. Koch, G.R. (1993). Process Assessment: the Bootstrap Approach. Information and Software Technology 35(6/7): 387-403. Krasner, H. (1994). The Payoff for Software Process Improvement (SPI): What it is and How to get it. Software Process Newsletter 1: 3-8. Kraut, R.E., and Streeter, L.A. (1995). Coordination in Software Development. Communications of the ACM 38(3): 69-81. Lebsanft, E. (1996). BOOTSTRAP: Experiences with Europe’s Software Process Assessment and Improvement Method. Krasner, H. (1994). Software Process Newsletter 5: 6-10. Mackey, K. (1996). Why Bad Things Happen to Good Projects. IEEE Software May: 27-32. McGarry, F. E. (1995). Product-Driven Process Improvement. Software Process Newsletter 3:1-3. McManus, J.I. (1992), “How Does Software Quality Assurance Fit In?”, in Handbook of Software Quality Assurance, ed. Schulmeyer, G.G., and McManus, J.I., New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 14-24. Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., and Weber, C.V. (1993a), Capability Maturity Model for Software (Ver 1.1), Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh. Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V., Garcia, S.M., Chrissis, M., and Bush, M. (1993b). Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model (Ver 1.1), Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-25, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh. Paulk, M.C. (1994). A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-12, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh. Paulk, M.C., Konrad, M.D., and Garcia, S.M. (1995). CMM Versus SPICE Architectures. Software Process Newsletter 3: 7-11. Rada, R. (1996). ISO 9000 Reflects the Best in Standards. Communications of the ACM 39(3): 17-20. Schwaber, K. (1996). Defining Process vs. Problem-Solving. Application Development Trends March: 76-81. Software Engineering Technical Committee of the IEEE Computer Society (1983). IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, IEEE-STD-729-1983, New York: IEEE, p.32. SPC (Software Productivity Centre) (1994). Metricate: Metrics Implementation Guide for Software Quality Professionals, Software Productivity Centre, Vancouver. US Government Accounting Office (1979). Contracting for Computer Software Development-Serious Problems Require Management Attention to Avoid Wasting Additional Millions. Report FGMSD-80-4. November.en_NZ
otago.relation.number96/19en_NZ
 Find in your library

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record