Using the Cognitive Walkthrough Method in Software Process Improvement

• Autorzy: Polgár P B

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5277/e-Inf150105.

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the past years, efforts in the field of Software Process Improvement were increasingly focusing on human aspects making one aware that people participating in the processes have a high impact on the success of any improvement. Applying the usability methodology to these problems is a promising new approach to dealing with the people issues in Software Process Improvement. This approach builds on the strengths of the usability perspective, most importantly its rich method library. One of these methods is the cognitive walkthrough method, used extensively by practitioners in software development projects.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Usability; Software Process Improvement; Cognitive walkthrough

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: Vol. 9, nr 1
• Strony: 79--85
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 31 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Polgár P B

• Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest

Bibliografia

• [1] M. Korsaa, J. Johansen, T. Schweigert, D. Vohwinkel, R. Messnarz, R. Nevalainen, and M. Biró, “The people aspects in modern (S)PI management approaches,” 2010, presented at the EuroSPI 2010.
• [2] M. Biró, R. Messnarz, and A. Davison, “The impact of national cultural factors on the effectiveness of process improvement methods: The third dimension,” 2002, software Quality Professional. Volume 4.
• [3] M. Biró, R. Messnarz, and A. Davison, “Experiences with the impact of cultural factors on SPI,” 2001, presented at the EuroSPI 2001.
• [4] M. Mahrin, D. Carrington, and P. Strooper, “Investigating factors affecting the usability of software process descriptions,” in Proceedings of the Software process, 2008 international conference on Making globally distributed software development a success story, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, p. 222–233.
• [5] M. Kellner, U.Becker, W. Riddle, J. Tomal, and M. Verlage, “Process guides: Effective guidance for process participants,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Software Process, ISPA Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1998, pp. 11–25.
• [6] R. Prikladnicki, “QUASE – a quantitative approach to analyze the human aspects of software development projects,” in Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2009, p. 78.
• [7] K. Saikas and E. Saikas, “The human factor deployment for improved agile quality,” 2006, presented at the EuoSPI 2006.
• [8] E. Mumford, “The ETHICS approach,” Commun. ACM, No. 36, 1993, pp. 82–.
• [9] R. Messnarz, G. Spork, A. Riel, and S. Tichkiewitch, Dynamic Learning Organisations Supporting Knowledge Creation for Competitive and Integrated Product Design, 2009.
• [10] T. T. O’Keeffe and D. Harington, “Learning to learn an examination of organisational learning in selected Irish multinationals,” Journal of European Industrial Training, No. 25, 2001, pp. 137–147.
• [11] M. Chirstiansen and J. Johansen, “ImprovabilityTM guidelines for low maturity organisations,” 2007, presented at the EuroSPI 2007.
• [12] “ISO 13407:1999 human-centred design processes for interactive systems,” 1999. [13] P. Polgár and M. Biró, “The usability approach in software process improvement,” 2011, presented at the EuroSPI 2011.
• [14] M. Hammer, “The process and enterprise maturity model,” retrieved on 10.05.2011. [Online]. http://www.hammerandco.com/ HammerAndCompany.aspx?id=58
• [15] I. Jacobson and I. Spence, “Enough of processes – lets do practices,” Journal of Object Technology, No. 6, 2007, pp. 41–66.
• [16] “SPI manifesto,” retrieved on 10.05.2011. [Online]. http://www.iscn.com/Images/SPI_ Manifesto_A.1.2.2010.pdf
• [17] N. Moe and T. Dybå, “The use of an electronic process guide in a medium-sized software development company,” Softw. Process: Improve. Pract, No. 11, 2006, pp. 21–34.
• [18] L. Scott, Understanding the use of an electronic process guide, 2002.
• [19] Y. Wang, Software engineering processes: principles and applications. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press, 2000.
• [20] “ISO/IEC 9126:2001 software engineering – product quality. iso/iec,” 2001.
• [21] “ISO 9241-11:1998 ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (vdts) – part 11: Guidance on usability,” 1998.
• [22] T. Tullis, Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Amsterdam, Boston: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, 2008.
• [23] J. Hewitt, “Citizen-centered design (slowly) revolutionizes the media and experience of U.S elections.”
• [24] T. Keinonen, “One-dimensional usability – in- fluence of usability on consumers’ product preference,” Master’s thesis, University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH, 1998.
• [25] B. Al-Ani, E. Trainer, R. Ripley, A. Sarma, A. van der Hoek, and D. Redmiles, “Continuous coordination within the context of cooperative and human aspects of software engineering,” 2008, p. 1–4.
• [26] J. Nielsen and R. Mack, Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, 1994.
• [27] J. Rieman, M. Franzke, and D. Redmiles, “Usability evaluation with the cognitive walkthrough,” in Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, 1995, p. 387–388.
• [28] D. Pinelle and C. Gutwin, “Groupware walkthrough: adding context to groupware usability evaluation,” 2002, p. 455–462.
• [29] D. Rowley and D. Rhoades, “The cognitive jogthrough: a fast-paced user interface evaluation procedure,” 1992, p. 389–395.
• [30] D. Novick, “Using the cognitive walkthrough for operating procedures,” Interactions, No. 6, 1999, pp. 31–37.
• [31] Y. Wang and G. King, “Philosophies and approaches to software process improvement,” in Conference on Software Process Improvement (EuroSPI’99), Pori, Finland, 1999, pp. 7.24–7.38.