Factors determining long-term success of a measurement program: an industrial case study

• Autorzy: Staron, M. , Medig, W.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Introducing measurement programs into organizations is a lengthy process affected by organizational and technical constraints. There exist several aspects that determine whether a measurement program has the chances of succeeding, like management commitment or existence of proper tool support. The establishing of a program, however, is only a part of the success. As organizations are dynamic entities, the measurement programs should constantly be maintained and adapted in order to cope with changing needs of the organizations. In this paper we study one of the measurement programs at Ericsson AB in Sweden and as a result we identify factors determining successful adoption and use of the measurement program. The results of our research in this paper are intended to support quality managers and project managers in establishing and maintaining successful metrics programs.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

measurement programs; factors determining; long-term success

• Czasopismo: e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: Vol. 5, nr 1
• Strony: 7--23
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 50 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Staron, M.

autor

Medig, W.

• Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers | University of Gothenburg Ericsson SW Research, Ericsson AB,

Bibliografia

• [1] M. Umarji and H. Emurian, “Acceptance issues in metrics program implementation,” in 11th IEEE International Symposium Software Metrics, H. Emurian, Ed., 2005, pp. 10–29.
• [2] K. L. Atkins, B. D. Martin, J. M. Vellinga, and R. A. Price, “Stardust: implementing a new manage-to-budget paradigm,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 52, no. 2-6, pp. 87–97, 2003, tY - JOUR.
• [3] T. Kilpi, “Implementing a software metrics program at nokia,” IEEE Software, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 72–77, 2001.
• [4] B. Clark, “Eight secrets of software measurement,” IEEE Software, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 12–14, 2002.
• [5] A. Gopal, T. Mukhopadhyay, and M. S. Krishnan, “The impact of institutional forces on software metrics programs,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 679–694, 2005, 0098-5589.
• [6] A. Gopal, M. S. Krishnan, T. Mukhopadhyay, and D. R. Goldenson, “Measurement programs in software development: determinants of success,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 863–875, 2002, 0098-5589.
• [7] J. Lawler and B. Kitchenham, “Measurement modeling technology,” IEEE Software, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 68–75, 2003, 0740-7459.
• [8] F. Niessink and H. van Vliet, “Measurement program success factors revisited,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 43, no. 10, pp.
• [9] “Measurements should generate value, rather than data,” in 6th International Software Metrics Symposium, 2000, pp. 31–38.
• [10] S. De Panfilis, B. Kitchenham, and N. Morfuni, “Experiences introducing a measurement program,”Information and Software Technology, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 745–754, 1997, tY - JOUR.
• [11] P. Goodman, Practical implementation of software metrics, ser. International software quality assurance series. London: McGraw-Hill, 1993,
• [12] K. H. Moeller, Software metrics: a practitioner’s guide to improved product development. London: Chapman-Hall, 1993.
• [13] M. Diaz-Ley, F. Garcia, and M. Piattini, “Implementing a software measurement program in small and medium enterprises: a suitable framework,” IET Software, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 417–436, 2008.
• [14] M. Staron, W. Meding, and C. Nilsson, “A framework for developing measurement systems and its industrial evaluation,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 721–737, 2008.
• [15] M. Jorgensen, “Software quality measurement,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 907–912, 1999.
• [16] D. Wisell, P. Stenvard, A. Hansebacke, and N. Keskitalo, “Considerations when designing and using virtual instruments as building blocks in flexible measurement system solutions,” in IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, P. Stenvard, Ed., 2007, pp. 1–5.
• [17] A. Sehmi, N. Jones, S. Wang, and G. Loudon, “Knowledge-based systems for neuroelectric signal processing,” IEE Proceedings-Science, Measurement and Technology, vol. 141, no. 3, pp. 215–23, 2003.
• [18] J. Feigin and K. Pahlavan, “Measurement of characteristics of voice over ip in a wireless lan environment,” in IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Multimedia Communications, K. Pahlavan, Ed., 2003, pp. 236–240.
• [19] M. Foote and D. Horn, “Video measurement of swash zone hydrodynamics,” Geomorphology, vol. 29, no. 1-2, pp. 59–76, 1999, tY - JOUR.
• [20] N. P. Kolev, S. T. Yordanova, and P. M. Tzvetkov, “Computerized investigation of robust measurement systems,” Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 207–210, 2002, 0018-9456.
• [21] R. F. Kunz, G. F. Kasmala, J. H. Mahaffy, and C. J. Murray, “On the automated assessment of nuclear reactor systems code accuracy,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 211, no. 2-3, pp. 245–272, 2002,
• [22] A. N. Zaborovsky, D. O. Danilov, G. V. Leonov, and R. V. Mescheriakov, “Software and hardware for measurements systems,” in The IEEE-Siberian Conference on Electron Devices and Materials, D. O. Danilov, Ed. IEEE, 2007, pp. 53–57.
• [23] H. Zhiyao, W. Baoliang, and L. Haiqing, “An intelligent measurement system for powder flowrate measurement in pneumatic conveying system,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 700–703, 2002,
• [24] G. Kai, “Virtual measurement system for muzzle velocity and firing frequency,” in 8th International Conference on Electronic Measurement and Instruments, 2001, pp. 176–179.
• [25] International vocabulary of basic and general terms in metrology = Vocabulaire international des termes fondamentaux et généraux de métrologie, 2nd ed. Genève, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 1993.
• [26] “Tychometrics,” Predicate Logic, 2007.
• [27] ISO/IEC 15939:2007 Systems and software engineering – Measurement process, International Standard Organization and International Electrotechnical Commission Std., 2007.
• [28] P. Tomaszewski, P. Berander, and L.-O. Damm, “From traditional to streamline development - opportunities and challenges,” Software Process Improvement and Practice, vol. 2007, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2007.
• [29] ISO IEC 9126, Software engineering, Product quality Part: 1 Quality model, International Standard Organization / International Electrotechnical Commission Std., 2001.
• [30] M. Staron and W. Meding, “Defect inflow prediction in large software projects,” e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.1–23, 2010.
• [31] “Using models to develop measurement systems: A method and its industrial use,” vol.5891, pp. 212–226, 2009.
• [32] M. Staron, W. Meding, G. Karlsson, and C. Nilsson, “Developing measurement systems: an industrial case study,” Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, pp. n/a–n/a, 2010.
• [33] R. Jeffery and M. Berry, “A framework for evaluation and prediction of metrics program success,” pp. 28–39, 1993.
• [34] M. Staron, L. Kuzniarz, and L. Wallin, “Factors determining effective realization of mda in industry,” in 2nd Nordic Workshop on the Unified Modeling Language, K. Koskimies, L. Kuzniarz, J. Lilius, and I. Porres, Eds., vol. 35. Abo Akademi, 2004, pp. 79–91.
• [35] “A case study on industrial mda realization - determinants of effectiveness,” Nordic Journal of Computing, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 254–278, 2004.
• [36] T. Hall and N. Fenton, “Implementing effective software metrics programs,” Software, IEEE,vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 55–65, 1997, 0740-7459.
• [37] D. Altman, Practical Statistics for Medical Research.Chapman-Hall, 1991.
• [38] D. F. Morrison, Multivariate statistical methods,3rd ed., ser. McGraw-Hill series in probability and statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.
• [39] L. Westfall, “Are we doing well, or are we doing poorly?” p. 20, 2005.
• [40] M. Staron and W. Meding, “Ensuring reliability of information provided by measurement systems,” vol. 5891, pp. 1–16, 2009.
• [41] C. A. Dekkers and P. A. McQuaid, “The dangers of using software metrics to (mis)manage,” IT Professional, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 24–30, 2002, 1520-9202.
• [42] J. D. Herbsleb and R. E. Grinter, “Conceptual simplicity meets organizational complexity: case study of a corporate metrics program,” in Software Engineering, 1998. Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on, R. E. Grinter, Ed.,2003, pp. 271–280.
• [43] F. Garcia, M. F. Bertoa, C. Calero, A. Vallecillo, F. Ruiz, M. Piattini, and M. Genero, “Towards a consistent terminology for software measurement,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 631–644, 2006.
• [44] Z. R. Pendic, L. Kovacevic, and J. Stupar, “An approach to evaluation of quality of integrated information systems,” Annual Review in Automatic Programming, vol. 14, no. Part 2, pp. 63–68, 1988.
• [45] B. K. Kahn, D. M. Strong, and R. Y. Wang, “Information quality benchmarks: Product and service performance,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 184–192, 2002.
• [46] F. J. Buckley, “Standards-establishing a standard metrics program,” Computer, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 85–86, 1990, 0018-9162.
• [47] S. L. Pfleeger, “Lessons learned in building a corporate metrics program,” Software, IEEE, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 67–74, 1993, 0740-7459.
• [48] P. Baker, S. Loh, and F. Weil, “Model-driven engineering in a large industrial context - a motorola case study,” in Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3713, 2002, pp. 476–491.
• [49] C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Host, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wesslèn, Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Boston MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2000.
• [50] M. Staron and W. Meding, “Predicting weekly defect inflow in large software projects based on project planning and test status,” Information and Software Technology, p. (available online),2007.