The measurement process in micro and small software maintenance companies: empirical study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
With the dissemination of quality models and the need for measurement-based management for software organizations, a variety of approaches and models are emerging to support organizations on this journey. According to a Systematic Review of Literature that selected 30 of 692 papers returned from search sources, it was noticed the need for guidelines and guides regarding the measurement process in a specific sector: micro and small companies that work with software maintenance. In this work, an empirical study was carried out to understand how the measurement process aligned with quality models can be implemented in these organizations. The field study followed the implementation of an improvement program based on CMMI® level 2 in 7 Brazilian companies from Maringá, Paraná. Finally, it was found that the process for the definition of a measurement guide can be common to a specific group of companies, taking steps and guidelines for its execution, always aligned with the organization’s strategy, giving top management an objective view work and process, supporting decision making.
Downloads
Article Details
1. Proposal of Policy for Free Access Periodics
Authors whom publish in this magazine should agree to the following terms:
a. Authors should keep the copyrights and grant to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work simultaneously permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 that allows the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this magazine.
b. Authors should have authorization for assuming additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this magazine (e.g.: to publish in an institutional repository or as book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.
c. Authors should have permission and should be stimulated to publish and to distribute its work online (e.g.: in institutional repositories or its personal page) to any point before or during the publishing process, since this can generate productive alterations, as well as increasing the impact and the citation of the published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
Proposal of Policy for Periodic that offer Postponed Free Access
Authors whom publish in this magazine should agree to the following terms:
a. Authors should keep the copyrights and grant to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work simultaneously permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 [SPECIFY TIME HERE] after the publication, allowing the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this magazine.
b. Authors should have authorization for assuming additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this magazine (e.g.: to publish in institutional repository or as book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.
c. Authors should have permission and should be stimulated to publish and to distribute its work online (e.g.: in institutional repositories or its personal page) to any point before or during the publishing process, since this can generate productive alterations, as well as increasing the impact and the citation of the published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
d. They allow some kind of open dissemination. Authors can disseminate their articles in open access, but with specific conditions imposed by the editor that are related to:
Version of the article that can be deposited in the repository:
Pre-print: before being reviewed by pairs.
Post-print: once reviewed by pairs, which can be:
The version of the author that has been accepted for publication.
The editor's version, that is, the article published in the magazine.
At which point the article can be made accessible in an open manner: before it is published in the magazine, immediately afterwards or if a period of seizure is required, which can range from six months to several years.
Where to leave open: on the author's personal web page, only departmental websites, the repository of the institution, the file of the research funding agency, among others.
References
ABES. Brazilian Software Market (2018) Scenario and Trend (ABES). http://central.abessoftware.com.br/Content/UploadedFiles/Arquivos/Dados%202011/ABES-Publicacao-Mercado-2017.pdf
AKINGBEHIN, K. (2008) Baseline-Based Framework for Continuous Software Process Improvement (CSPI). In Advanced Software Engineering and Its Applications. ASEA 2008. IEEE, 214–216.
ALORAN, M.; EID, H.; AL-SARAYREH, K. T. (2015) A High-Quality Software after Maintenance Depend on Effectiveness measures. In Proceedingsof the International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing, Security and Advanced Communication. ACM, 64.
APRIL, A.; ABRAN, A. (2008) Software Maintenance Management: Evalua- tion and Continuous Improvement, John Wily &Sons. Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
APRIL, A.; HAYES, J. H.; ABRAN, A.; DUMKE, R. (2005) Software Maintenance Maturity Model (SMmm): the Software Maintenance Process Model. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, v. 17, n. 3, p. 197–223.
BASILI, V.; HEIDRICH, J.; LINDVALL, M.; MUNCH, J.; REGARDIE, M.; TRENDOWICZ, A. (2007). GQMˆ+ Strategies–Aligning Business Strategies with Software Measurement. In Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ESEM 2007. First International Symposium on. IEEE, p. 488–490.
BERVIAN, P. A.; CERVO, A. L.; SILVA, R. (2002) Metodologia científica. São Paulo: Pretence Hall, p. 482–493.
MPS BR. (2011) BR–Melhoria de Processo do Software Brasileiro.
BRASIL, M. A. B.; FONTOURA, L. M.; SILVA, L. A. L. (2013) Uma Proposta para Melhoria da Qualidade de Processos de Software com base em MPS. BR. Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software (SBQS).
FERREIRA D. B.; BARCELLOS, M. P.; SANTOS, G. (2017) A Software Measurement Pattern Language for Measurement Planning at SPI. Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software (SBQS).
BURGER, S.; HUMMEL, O. (2012) Applying maintainability oriented soft- ware metrics to cabinsoftware of a commercial airliner. In Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR), 16th European Conference on. IEEE, p. 457–460.
CHAPETTA, W. A.; TRAVASSOS, G. H. (2016) Software Productivity Measurement and Prediction Methods: what can we tell about them? Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software.
TEAM PRODUCT CMMI. (2010) CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3, Improving processes for developing better products and services. no. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. Software Engineering Institute.
CORNU, C.; CHAPURLAT, V.; QUIOT, J.; IRIGOIN, F. (2012) A maturity model for the deployment of Systems Engineering processes. In Systems Conference (SysCon), IEEE International. IEEE, p. 1–6.
DEMARCO, T. (1986) Controlling software projects: Management, measurement, and estimates. Prentice Hall PTR.
DESHARNAIS, J.; APRIL, A. (2010) Software maintenance productivity and maturity. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Product Focused Software. ACM, p. 121–125.
DÍAZ-LEY, M.; GARCÍA, F.; PIATTINI, M. (2010) MIS-PyME software measurement capability maturity model–Supporting the definition of software measurement programs and capability determination. Advances in Engineering Software v. 41, n. 10, p. 1223–1237.
DIKICI, A.; TURETKEN, O.; DEMIRORS, O. (2012) A case study on measuring process quality: Lessons learned. In Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 38th EUROMICRO Conference on. IEEE, p. 294–297.
EDBERG, D.; IVANOVA, P. (2011) Embracing or Constraining Change: An Exploration of Methodologies forMaintaining Software. In System Sciences (HICSS), 44th Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, p. 1–10.
GONÇALVES, B. S.; SILVA, E. S. (2017) O Financiamento Público em Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação e o Desenvolvimento Regional. In Congresso Gestão Negócios TI–CONGENTI, v. 1.
GONÇALVES, T.; OLIVEIRA, K.; KOLSKI, C. (2017) A study about HCI in practice of interactive system development using CMMI-DEV. In 29 ème conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine. 10–p.
GRENNING, J. (2002) Planning poker or how to avoid analysis paralysis while release planning. Hawthorn Woods: Renaissance Software Consulting, v. 3, p. 22–23.
GUCEGLIOGLU, A. S.; DEMIRORS, O. (2011) The application of a new process quality measurement model for software process improvement initiatives. In Quality Software (QSIC), 11th International Conference Software Quality. IEEE, p. 112–120.
FERNÁNDEZ-SÁEZ, A. M.; CHAUDRON, M. R. V.; GENERO, M. (2018) An industrial case study on the use of UML in software maintenance and its perceived benefits and hurdles. Empirical Software Engineering, v. 23, n. 6, p. 3281-3345, 2018.
FERREIRA, A. I. F.; SANTOS, G.; CERQUEIRA, R.; MONTONI, M.; BARRETO, A.; BARRETO, A. O. S.; ROCHA, A. R. (2007) Applying ISO 9001: 2000, MPS. BR and CMMI to achieve software process maturity: BL informatica’s pathway. In Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, p. 642–651.
JAIN, P.; SHARMA, A.; AHUJA, L. (2019) A Customized Quality Model for Software Quality Assurance in Agile Environment. International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering (IJITWE), v. 14, n. 3, p. 64-77.
KAJKO-MATTSSON, M. (2001) Motivating the corrective maintenance maturity mo- del (CM/sup 3/). In Engineering of Complex Computer Systems. Proceedings. Seventh IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, p. 112–117.
KAJKO-MATTSSON, M.; SNYGG, J.; HAMMARGREN, E. (2012) CM 3: Emer- gency problem management-A scenario-based evaluation. In Information Science and Digital Content Technology (ICIDT), 8th International Conference on, v. 2. IEEE, p. 379–386.
KITCHENHAM, B. (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE. sn.
KIRK, J.; MILLER, M. L; MILLER, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. v. 1. Sage.
KITCHENHAM, B. A.; PFLEEGER, S. L.; FENTON, N. (1997). Reply to: Comments on "Towards a Framework for Software Measurements Validation". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v. 23, n. 3, p. 189.
KITCHENHAM, B. A.; PFLEEGER, S. L. (2008) Personal opinion surveys. In Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, p. 63–92.
KITCHENHAM, B. A.; PFLEEGER, S. L.; PICKARD, L. M.; JONES, P. W.; HOAGLIN, D. C.; EMAM, K. E.; ROSENBERG, J. (2002) Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, v. 28, n. 8, p. 721–734.
KÖCHE J. C. (1997) Fundamentos de metodologia científica. rev. e ampl. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
KURTEL, K.; OZEMRE, M. (2013) Cohesive software measurement planning framework using ISO standards: a case study from logistics service sector. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, v. 25, n. 7, p. 663–679.
LIN, C.; HUANG, Z. (2009) A flexible metric-driven framework for software process. In INC, IMS and IDC. NCM’09. Fifth International Joint Conference on. IEEE, p. 1198–1202.
MATA-LIMA, H.; MORGADO-DIAS, F.; SILVA, G.; CARRATO, M.; ALCÂNTARA, K.; ALMEIDA, J. A. (2016) A Systematic Framework for the Design and Implementation of a Quality Management Practice: The Case of a Consulting Engineering Company. Environmental Quality Management, v. 25, n. 4, p. 49–61.
MONTEIRO, L. F. S.; OLIVEIRA, K. M. (2010) Defining a catalog of indicators to support process performance analysis. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process.
MOREIRA, R. T.; LIMA, G. M.; MACHADO, B. B.; MARINHO, W. T.; VASCONCELOS, A.; ROUILLER, A. C. (2008) Uma Abordagem para Melhoria do Processo de Software baseada em Medição. VIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software.
MOURA, M. A.; FRANÇA, V. J. A. T. M.; ROUILLER, A. C. (2015) Implantação do Processo de Medição Aderente ao Modelo MR-MPS-SW com Foco em Estudo de Tempos em Empresas com Times SCRUM. Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software (SBQS).
MUTAFELIJA, B.; STROMBERG, H. (2003) Systematic process improvement using ISO 9001: 2000 and CMMI. Artech House.
NETO, J. A. M. (2002) Metodologia científica na era da informática. Saraiva.
NIESSINK, F.; VLIET, H. V. (2000) Software maintenance from a service perspective. Journal of Software Maintenance, v. 12, n. 2, p. 103–120.
O'CONNOR, R. V. (2019) Software Development Process Standards for Very Small Companies. In: Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Digital Marketing and Entrepreneurship. IGI Global, p. 681-694.
OKIKE, E. U. (2018) FQWCOS: A Flexible Model for Measuring Customer Satisfaction on Software Based Products and Service. Software Engineering, v. 6, n. 4, p. 110.
PEIXOTO, D. C. C.; BATISTA, V. A.; RESENDE, R. F.; PÁDUA, C. I. P. S. (2010) A Case Study of Software Process Improvement Implementation. In Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, p. 716–721.
PÉREZ, J.; MENS, T.; KAMSEU, F. (2013) A pilot study on software quality practices in Belgian industry. In Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR), 17th European Conference on. IEEE, p. 395–398.
PINO, F. J.; RUIZ, F.; GARCIA, F.; PIATTINI, M. (2012) A software maintenance methodology for small organizations: Agile_MANTEMA. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, v. 24, n. 8, p. 851–876.
PORT, D.; TABER, B. (2018) An empirical study of process policies and metrics to manage productivity and quality for maintenance of critical software systems at the jet propulsion laboratory. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM. p. 37.
RACHEVA, Z.; DANEVA, M.; BUGLIONE, L. (2008) Complementing measurements and real options concepts to support inter-iteration decision- making in agile projects. In Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. SEAA’08. 34th Euromicro Conference. IEEE, p. 457–464.
RODRÍGUEZ, P.; KUVAJA, P.; OIVO, M. (2014) Lessons learned on applying design science for bridging the collaboration gap between industry and acade- mia in empirical software engineering. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Conducting Empirical Studies in Industry. ACM, p. 9–14.
ROMBACH, H. D.; ULERY, B. T. (1989) Improving software maintenance through measurement. Proc. IEEE, v. 77, n. 4, p. 581–595.
SALVIANO, C. F. (2006) Uma proposta orientada a perfis de capacidade de processo para evolução da melhoria de processo de software.
SCAMPI, T. U. (2011) Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) A, Version 1.3: Method Definition Document.
SCHRETTNER, L.; FÜLÖP, L. J., KISS, A.; GYIMÓTHY, T. (2012) Software quality model and framework with applications in industrial context. In Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR), 16th European Conference on. IEEE, p. 453–456.
SCHWABER, K. (1997) Scrum development process. In Business object design and implementation. Springer, p. 117–134.
SEBRAE (2017) SEBRAETEC - Serviços em Inovação e Tecnologia. http://www.sebrae.com.br/sites/PortalSebrae/ Programas/sebraetec-inovar-no-seu-negocio-pode-ser-facil.
SOUTHEKAL, P. H.; LEVIN, G. (2011) Formulation and empiri- cal validation of a gqm based measurement framework. In Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 2011 International Symposium on. IEEE, p. 404–413. Evidências sobre o desem- penho das empresas que adotaram o modelo MPS-SW. Campinas, Brazil: Softex.
STARON, M.; MEDING, W.; KARLSSON, G.; NILSSON, C. (2011) Developing measurement systems: an industrial case study. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, v. 23, n. 2, p. 89–107.
SUKARIE-NETO, J. (2018) Mercado Brasileiro de Software – Panorama e Tendências – 2017 (ABES). http://central.abessoftware.com.br/Content/UploadedFiles/Arquivos/Dados%202011/ABES-EstudoMercadoBrasileirodeSoftware2018_ResumidaIngles.pdf
TRAVASSOS, G. H.; KALINOWSKI, M. (2014) iMPS.
UNTERKALMSTEINER, M.; GORSCHEK, T.; ISLAM, A. K. M.; CHENG, C. K.; PERMADI, R. B.; FELDT, R. (2014) A conceptual framework for SPI evaluation. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, v. 26, n. 2, p. 251–279.
WALLACE, L. G.; SHEETZ, S. D. (2014) The adoption of software measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Information & Management, v. 51, n. 2, p. 249–259.
YIN R. K. (2015) Estudo de Caso: Planejamento e Métodos. Bookman editora.
YU, B.; CONG, G.; NING, L.; JIANG, H.; WANG, X. (2009) The Model of Software Process Measurement and Improvement Driven by Project Performance. In Computer Network and Multimedia Technology, 2009. CNMT 2009. International Symposium on. IEEE, p. 1–4.