103191733-notes-software-quality-management.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Software Quality ManagementSoftware Quality Management
Software Quality IntroductionSoftware Quality Introduction
![Page 2: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
AgendaAgenda
DefinitionsDefinitions– Quality and software QualityQuality and software Quality
Views about qualityViews about quality Total quality managementTotal quality management
![Page 3: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
QualityQuality
Hard to define, impossible to measure and Hard to define, impossible to measure and easy to recogniseeasy to recognise
ExampleExample– Cars in India, Mercedes, Chevy, IndicaCars in India, Mercedes, Chevy, Indica
Quality is Quality is – not absolutenot absolute– multidimensionalmultidimensional– about acceptable compromisesabout acceptable compromises– criteria of quality interact with each othercriteria of quality interact with each other
![Page 4: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Defining qualityDefining quality
Vague definitionsVague definitions– The degree of excellenceThe degree of excellence– Zero defectZero defect– Quality is when customer comes back but not Quality is when customer comes back but not
the productthe product Trying to be preciseTrying to be precise
– ISOISO The totality of features and characteristics of a The totality of features and characteristics of a
product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needsstated and implied needs
![Page 5: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Combining all the definitionsCombining all the definitions
It is fitness of needsIt is fitness of needs– Needs => specification conformanceNeeds => specification conformance– fitness => intended purposefitness => intended purpose
ExampleExample– Water fall model of developmentWater fall model of development
Requirements and design form the needRequirements and design form the need Verification and validation forms the fitnessVerification and validation forms the fitness
![Page 6: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Issues in software qualityIssues in software quality
Software has no physical existenceSoftware has no physical existence Lack of knowledge of client needs at the Lack of knowledge of client needs at the
start of the projectstart of the project Rate of change of hardware / softwareRate of change of hardware / software High expectations from customer / High expectations from customer /
adaptabilityadaptability
![Page 7: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Manufacturing vs softwareManufacturing vs software
No releasesNo releases No bug fixesNo bug fixes Purchase new model Purchase new model
for new specificationsfor new specifications
Patch releasesPatch releases Minor and Major Minor and Major
releasesreleases New features on top of New features on top of
old modelold model
![Page 8: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Views on qualityViews on quality
Polyhedron metaphorPolyhedron metaphor– Timeliness, cost, functionality, correctness, reliability, Timeliness, cost, functionality, correctness, reliability,
maintainabilitymaintainability Project manager’s viewProject manager’s view
– Reliability, Timeliness, maintainability, correctnessReliability, Timeliness, maintainability, correctness Business analystBusiness analyst
– Functionality, correctness, timeliness, costFunctionality, correctness, timeliness, cost ProgrammerProgrammer
– Functionality, correctness, maintainabilityFunctionality, correctness, maintainability
![Page 9: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Views on qualityViews on quality
Quality auditorQuality auditor– ??
End userEnd user– ??
Line ManagerLine Manager– ??
Project SponsorProject Sponsor– ??
![Page 10: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Garvin’s views of qualityGarvin’s views of quality Transcendent viewTranscendent view
– EleganceElegance Product based viewProduct based view
– Higher the quality higher the costHigher the quality higher the cost User based viewUser based view
– Fitness of purposeFitness of purpose Manufacturing viewManufacturing view
– Conformance to requirementsConformance to requirements Value based viewValue based view
– Give what the customer requires at the price they wantGive what the customer requires at the price they want
![Page 11: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Total Quality ManagementTotal Quality Management
Coined in 1985 by Naval Air Systems Coined in 1985 by Naval Air Systems CommandCommand
Links long term success with quality and Links long term success with quality and customer satisfactioncustomer satisfaction
Successful TQM examplesSuccessful TQM examples– HP – Total Quality ControlHP – Total Quality Control– Motorola – 6-Motorola – 6-– IBM – Market driven qualityIBM – Market driven quality
σ
![Page 12: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Software TQM Contd.,Software TQM Contd., HPHP
– Focus on management commitment, leadership, Focus on management commitment, leadership, customer focus, total participation and systematic customer focus, total participation and systematic analysis leading to customer satisfactionanalysis leading to customer satisfaction
MotorolaMotorola– Stringent quality levels to obtain customer satisfaction Stringent quality levels to obtain customer satisfaction
through cycle time reduction and participative through cycle time reduction and participative managementmanagement
IBMIBM– Defect elimination, Cycle time reduction, customer and Defect elimination, Cycle time reduction, customer and
business partner satisfaction and adherence to business partner satisfaction and adherence to Baldridge assessment disciplineBaldridge assessment discipline
![Page 13: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
TQM systemTQM system
Customer focusCustomer focus– Total customer satisfactionTotal customer satisfaction
ProcessProcess– Continuous process improvementContinuous process improvement
Human side of qualityHuman side of quality– Company wide quality cultureCompany wide quality culture
Measurement and AnalysisMeasurement and Analysis– Continuous improvement with goal oriented Continuous improvement with goal oriented
measurementmeasurement
![Page 14: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
End of Session 1End of Session 1
![Page 15: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Hierarchical models for quality – Hierarchical models for quality – Software Development processSoftware Development process
Session 2Session 2
![Page 16: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
AgendaAgenda
Definition of Hierarchial modelsDefinition of Hierarchial models Examples of Hierarchial modelsExamples of Hierarchial models Software Development Process modelsSoftware Development Process models Process maturity framework and quality Process maturity framework and quality
standardsstandards
![Page 17: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Hierarchial ModelHierarchial Model
Need for a modelNeed for a model– To evaluate quality under different situationsTo evaluate quality under different situations
Model of BITS for assessmentModel of BITS for assessment– Subject – 4 tests – EC1, EC2, EC3, and EC4Subject – 4 tests – EC1, EC2, EC3, and EC4– EC2, EC4 is copy EC2, EC4 is copy open book open book– Marks for each testMarks for each test– GradingGrading– CGPACGPA
![Page 18: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Structure of Hierarchial ModelStructure of Hierarchial Model
Quality Factor
Quality Criteria(Reliability)
Quality Criteria(Maintainability)
Quality Criteria(Usability)
Quality Metrics Quality MetricsQuality Metrics
(Accuracy, Consistency, Error Tolerance, Simplicity)
![Page 19: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
GE Model or McCall’s ModelGE Model or McCall’s Model
Product
Operation
Product
Transition
Product
Revision
Maintainability
Flexibility
Testability
Portability
Reusability
Interoperability
Correctness, Reliability, Efficiency, Integrity, Usability
![Page 20: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Boehm ModelBoehm Model
General UtilityGeneral Utility– As is utilityAs is utility
EfficiencyEfficiency Human EngineeringHuman Engineering
– MaintainabilityMaintainability TestabilityTestability UnderstandabilityUnderstandability ModifiabilityModifiability
– PortabilityPortability
![Page 21: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Base Factors of Boehm’s modelBase Factors of Boehm’s model Device independenceDevice independence Self ContainednessSelf Containedness AccuracyAccuracy CompletenessCompleteness Robustness / IntegrityRobustness / Integrity ConsistencyConsistency AccountabilityAccountability Device efficiencyDevice efficiency AccessibilityAccessibility CommunicativenessCommunicativeness Self DescriptivenessSelf Descriptiveness StructurednessStructuredness ConcisenessConciseness LegibilityLegibility AugmentabilityAugmentability
![Page 22: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Common Factors of the modelCommon Factors of the model
Quality criteria is based on user viewQuality criteria is based on user view Models focus on parts that designers can Models focus on parts that designers can
analyseanalyse These models cannot be tested or validatedThese models cannot be tested or validated
– Then what’s the point in having this?Then what’s the point in having this? Measurement of quality is a weighted Measurement of quality is a weighted
summation of the characteristics – result is summation of the characteristics – result is of limited value but usefulof limited value but useful
![Page 23: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Interrelation of quality criteriaInterrelation of quality criteria Integrity vs efficiency (I)Integrity vs efficiency (I) Maintainability vs flexibility (D)Maintainability vs flexibility (D) Usability vs efficiency ?Usability vs efficiency ? Portability vs efficiency ?Portability vs efficiency ? Portability vs reusability ?Portability vs reusability ? Correctness vs efficiency ?Correctness vs efficiency ?
These relationships may not be commutative / These relationships may not be commutative / some may defy classification !!some may defy classification !!
![Page 24: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Gillies modelGillies model
Quality = correctnessQuality = correctness– Technical factors (conformance to spec)Technical factors (conformance to spec)
ReliabilityReliability MaintainabilityMaintainability IntegrityIntegrity EfficiencyEfficiency UsabilityUsability AdaptabilityAdaptability InteroperabilityInteroperability PortabilityPortability
![Page 25: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Gillies modelGillies model
– Business Factors (fitness of purpose)Business Factors (fitness of purpose) Added valueAdded value CostCost Timeliness of deliveryTimeliness of delivery User SatisfactionUser Satisfaction Ease of TransitionEase of Transition
![Page 26: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Software Development Software Development Process ModelsProcess Models
![Page 27: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
AgendaAgenda
WaterfallWaterfall PrototypingPrototyping SpiralSpiral Iterative developmentIterative development OODOOD Clean room methodologyClean room methodology Defect Prevention ProcessDefect Prevention Process
![Page 28: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Water Fall Development ModelWater Fall Development ModelRequirements Gathering and Analysis
Architectural Design
HLD/Ins LLD/Ins Coding/Ins Unit Testing
Integration
Component and system test Alpha and
Beta Testing
Release
![Page 29: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Water fallWater fall
Document driven approachDocument driven approach Risk takes a back seatRisk takes a back seat
![Page 30: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
PrototypingPrototyping
Useful when systems Useful when systems requirements change requirements change with timewith time
All external interfaces All external interfaces made availablemade available
Two modificationsTwo modifications– Throw away prototypingThrow away prototyping– Evolutionary prototypingEvolutionary prototyping
Requirements Gathering
and analysis
Quick Design
Building prototype, Customer evaluation,
refining design and prototype
![Page 31: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Spiral ModelSpiral Model
Planning next phases
Review
Cumulative cost
![Page 32: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Spiral ModelSpiral Model AdvantagesAdvantages
– Risk analysis and risk driven approachRisk analysis and risk driven approach– Prototyping is importantPrototyping is important– Uses simulations, models and benchmarksUses simulations, models and benchmarks– Reviews are doneReviews are done– Prepares for growth, evolution and changesPrepares for growth, evolution and changes
DisadvantagesDisadvantages– Matching to contract softwareMatching to contract software– Relying on risk management expertiseRelying on risk management expertise– Need for further elaboration of spiral stepsNeed for further elaboration of spiral steps
![Page 33: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Iterative developmentIterative development
![Page 34: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Iterative DevelopmentIterative Development
a.k.a iterative enhancement approacha.k.a iterative enhancement approach Prototype + Water fall + Spiral = IDPPrototype + Water fall + Spiral = IDP IBM OS/2 used this approachIBM OS/2 used this approach
![Page 35: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
OO DevelopmentOO Development
Model the essential systemModel the essential system– Use caseUse case
Derive candidate essential classesDerive candidate essential classes– Found in external entities, data stores, input flows and Found in external entities, data stores, input flows and
process specs.process specs. Constrain the essential modelConstrain the essential model
– Bring the target implementation environment into pictureBring the target implementation environment into picture Derive additional classesDerive additional classes
– Add classes specific to implementationAdd classes specific to implementation
![Page 36: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
OO DevelopmentOO Development
Synthesize classesSynthesize classes– Refinement of classes using OOPRefinement of classes using OOP
Define interfacesDefine interfaces Complete the designComplete the design
– Interaction, states etcInteraction, states etc Implement the solutionImplement the solution
– Classes coded and unit testedClasses coded and unit tested
![Page 37: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Cleanroom MethodologyCleanroom Methodology
![Page 38: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Defect Prevention ProcessDefect Prevention Process
![Page 39: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Process Maturity Framework Process Maturity Framework and Quality Standardsand Quality Standards
![Page 40: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
AgendaAgenda
SEI AssessmentSEI Assessment SPR AssessmentSPR Assessment Malcolm Baldridge AssessmentMalcolm Baldridge Assessment ISOISO
![Page 41: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
SEI-CMMSEI-CMM
InitialInitial– Chaotic, unpredictable cost, schedule and Chaotic, unpredictable cost, schedule and
quality performancequality performance RepeatableRepeatable
– Requirements managementRequirements management– Software project planning and managementSoftware project planning and management– Software subcontract managementSoftware subcontract management– SQASQA– SCMSCM
![Page 42: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
SEI-CMMSEI-CMM
DefinedDefined– Organisational process improvementOrganisational process improvement– Organisation process definitionOrganisation process definition– Training programTraining program– Integrated software managementIntegrated software management– Software product engineeringSoftware product engineering– Intergroup coordinationIntergroup coordination– Peer reviewsPeer reviews
![Page 43: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
SEI-CMMSEI-CMM
ManagedManaged– Process measurement and analysisProcess measurement and analysis– Quality managementQuality management
OptimizingOptimizing– Defect PreventionDefect Prevention– Technology innovationTechnology innovation– Process change managementProcess change management
![Page 44: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
CMMICMMI InitialInitial
– Processes are adhoc and chaoticProcesses are adhoc and chaotic ManagedManaged
– Requirements managementRequirements management– Project planningProject planning– Project monitoring and controlProject monitoring and control– Supplier agreement managementSupplier agreement management– Measurement and analysisMeasurement and analysis– Process and product qaProcess and product qa– SCMSCM
![Page 45: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
CMMICMMI DefinedDefined
– Requirements developmentRequirements development– Technical solutionTechnical solution– Product integrationProduct integration– VerificationVerification– ValidationValidation– Organizational process focusOrganizational process focus– Organization process definitionOrganization process definition– Integrated product managementIntegrated product management– Risk managementRisk management– Decision analysis and resolutionDecision analysis and resolution– Organizational environment for integrationOrganizational environment for integration– Integrated teamingIntegrated teaming
![Page 46: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
CMMICMMI Qualitatively managedQualitatively managed
– Organization process performanceOrganization process performance– Quantitative project managementQuantitative project management
OptimizingOptimizing– Organizational innovation and deploymentOrganizational innovation and deployment– Causal analysis and resolutionCausal analysis and resolution
Capability level of individual process areasCapability level of individual process areas– L0 – In completeL0 – In complete– L1 – PerformedL1 – Performed– L2 – ManagedL2 – Managed– L3 – DefinedL3 – Defined– L4 – Quantitatively ManagedL4 – Quantitatively Managed– L5 - OptimizingL5 - Optimizing
![Page 47: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Software Productivity Research Software Productivity Research AssessmentAssessment
5 point scale5 point scale– Excellent, Good, Average, Below Average, PoorExcellent, Good, Average, Below Average, Poor
Questions onQuestions on– Quality and productivity measurementsQuality and productivity measurements– Pretest defect removal experience among programmersPretest defect removal experience among programmers– Test defect removal experience among programmersTest defect removal experience among programmers– Project quality and reliability targetsProject quality and reliability targets– Pretest defect removal at project levelPretest defect removal at project level– Project testing defect removalProject testing defect removal– Post test defect removalPost test defect removal
Findings are grouped intoFindings are grouped into– Projects and software products being assessedProjects and software products being assessed– Software technologies usedSoftware technologies used– Software processes usedSoftware processes used– Ergonomics and work environment for staffErgonomics and work environment for staff– Personnel training for staff and managementPersonnel training for staff and management
![Page 48: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Malcolm Baldridge AssessmentMalcolm Baldridge Assessment Most prestigious quality award in USMost prestigious quality award in US 7 Categories and 28 examination items7 Categories and 28 examination items CategoriesCategories
– LeadershipLeadership– Information and analysisInformation and analysis– Strategic quality planningStrategic quality planning– HR utilizationHR utilization– Quality Assurance of product and servicesQuality Assurance of product and services– Quality resultsQuality results– Customer SatisfactionCustomer Satisfaction
Scoring is based onScoring is based on– Approach, Deployment and resultsApproach, Deployment and results
![Page 49: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Malcolm Baldridge AssessmentMalcolm Baldridge Assessment Purpose of assessmentPurpose of assessment
– Elevate quality standardsElevate quality standards– Faciliate sharing and communication within organizationFaciliate sharing and communication within organization– Serve as working tool for planning, training, assessment Serve as working tool for planning, training, assessment
and other usesand other uses– Provide basis for making awardProvide basis for making award– Provide feedback to applicantsProvide feedback to applicants
1000 points in award criteria1000 points in award criteria Each exam item has a % score >70% will be Each exam item has a % score >70% will be
considered for awardconsidered for award Feedback is very important not the awardFeedback is very important not the award
![Page 50: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
ISOISO
Evaluated on 20 elementsEvaluated on 20 elements Abroad about 60 – 70% organizations are rejectedAbroad about 60 – 70% organizations are rejected In India it is available at a cost!!!In India it is available at a cost!!! Documentation, Documentation , Documentation - Documentation, Documentation , Documentation -
all well trackedall well tracked Looks at both Looks at both
– Product metricsProduct metrics– Process metricsProcess metrics
![Page 51: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
NotesNotes
ISO and MB models are complementaryISO and MB models are complementary SEI and SPR looks at maturity of SEI and SPR looks at maturity of
organizationorganization ISO and MB assess the organization ISO and MB assess the organization
irrespective of the industryirrespective of the industry We will now start focusing on measurement We will now start focusing on measurement
and metrics which is used in all of the above and metrics which is used in all of the above !!!! from next class!!!! from next class
![Page 52: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
BITS PilaniPilani Campus
Software Quality Management
Lecture 1-2
![Page 53: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Agenda
• Definitions– Quality and software Quality
• Views about quality• Total quality management
![Page 54: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Quality
• Hard to define, impossible to measure and easy to recognise
• Example– Cars in India, Mercedes, Chevy, Indica
• Quality is – not absolute– multidimensional– about acceptable compromises– criteria of quality interact with each other
![Page 55: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Defining quality
• Vague definitions– The degree of excellence– Zero defect– Quality is when customer comes back but not
the product• Trying to be precise
– ISO• The totality of features and characteristics of a
product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs
![Page 56: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Combining all the definitions
• It is fitness of needs– Needs => specification conformance– fitness => intended purpose
• Example– Water fall model of development
• Requirements and design form the need• Verification and validation forms the fitness
![Page 57: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Issues in software quality
• Software has no physical existence• Lack of knowledge of client needs at the
start of the project• Rate of change of hardware / software• High expectations from customer /
adaptability
![Page 58: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Manufacturing vs software
• No releases• No bug fixes• Purchase new model
for new specifications
• Patch releases• Minor and Major
releases• New features on top
of old model
![Page 59: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Views on quality
• Polyhedron metaphor– Timeliness, cost, functionality, correctness, reliability,
maintainability• Project manager’s view
– Reliability, Timeliness, maintainability, correctness• Business analyst
– Functionality, correctness, timeliness, cost• Programmer
– Functionality, correctness, maintainability
![Page 60: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Views on quality
• Quality auditor– ?
• End user– ?
• Line Manager– ?
• Project Sponsor– ?
![Page 61: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Garvin’s views of quality• Transcendent view
– Elegance• Product based view
– Higher the quality higher the cost• User based view
– Fitness of purpose• Manufacturing view
– Conformance to requirements• Value based view
– Give what the customer requires at the price they want
![Page 62: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Total Quality Management
• Coined in 1985 by Naval Air Systems Command
• Links long term success with quality and customer satisfaction
• Successful TQM examples– HP – Total Quality Control– Motorola – 6-– IBM – Market driven quality
σ
![Page 63: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Software TQM Contd.,• HP
– Focus on management commitment, leadership, customer focus, total participation and systematic analysis leading to customer satisfaction
• Motorola– Stringent quality levels to obtain customer satisfaction
through cycle time reduction and participative management
• IBM– Defect elimination, Cycle time reduction, customer
and business partner satisfaction and adherence to Baldridge assessment discipline
![Page 64: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
TQM system
• Customer focus– Total customer satisfaction
• Process– Continuous process improvement
• Human side of quality– Company wide quality culture
• Measurement and Analysis– Continuous improvement with goal oriented
measurement
![Page 65: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
End of Session 1
![Page 66: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Hierarchical models for quality – Software Development process
Session 2
![Page 67: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Agenda
• Definition of Hierarchial models• Examples of Hierarchial models• Software Development Process models• Process maturity framework and quality
standards
![Page 68: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Hierarchial Model
• Need for a model– To evaluate quality under different situations
• Model of BITS for assessment– Subject – 4 tests – EC1, EC2, EC3, and EC4– EC2, EC4 is copy open book– Marks for each test– Grading– CGPA
![Page 69: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Structure of Hierarchial Model
Quality Factor
Quality Criteria(Reliability)
Quality Criteria(Maintainability)
Quality Criteria(Usability)
Quality Metrics Quality MetricsQuality Metrics
(Accuracy, Consistency, Error Tolerance, Simplicity)
![Page 70: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
GE Model or McCall’s Model
Product
Operation
Product
Transition
Product
Revision
Maintainability
Flexibility
Testability
Portability
Reusability
Interoperability
Correctness, Reliability, Efficiency, Integrity, Usability
![Page 71: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Boehm Model
• General Utility– As is utility
• Efficiency• Human Engineering
– Maintainability• Testability• Understandability• Modifiability
– Portability
![Page 72: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Base Factors of Boehm’s model• Device independence• Self Containedness• Accuracy• Completeness• Robustness / Integrity• Consistency• Accountability• Device efficiency• Accessibility• Communicativeness• Self Descriptiveness• Structuredness• Conciseness• Legibility• Augmentability
![Page 73: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Common Factors of the model
• Quality criteria is based on user view• Models focus on parts that designers can
analyse• These models cannot be tested or
validated– Then what’s the point in having this?
• Measurement of quality is a weighted summation of the characteristics – result is of limited value but useful
![Page 74: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Interrelation of quality criteria
• Integrity vs efficiency (I)• Maintainability vs flexibility (D)• Usability vs efficiency ?• Portability vs efficiency ?• Portability vs reusability ?• Correctness vs efficiency ?
• These relationships may not be commutative / some may defy classification !!
![Page 75: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Gillies model
• Quality = correctness– Technical factors (conformance to spec)
• Reliability• Maintainability• Integrity• Efficiency• Usability• Adaptability• Interoperability• Portability
![Page 76: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Gillies model
– Business Factors (fitness of purpose)• Added value• Cost• Timeliness of delivery• User Satisfaction• Ease of Transition
![Page 77: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Software Development Process Models
![Page 78: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Agenda
• Waterfall• Prototyping• Spiral• Iterative development• OOD• Clean room methodology• Defect Prevention Process
![Page 79: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Water Fall Development ModelRequirements Gathering and Analysis
Architectural Design
HLD/Ins LLD/Ins Coding/Ins Unit Testing
Integration
Component and system test Alpha and
Beta Testing
Release
![Page 80: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Water fall
• Document driven approach• Risk takes a back seat
![Page 81: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Prototyping
• Useful when systems requirements change with time
• All external interfaces made available
• Two modifications– Throw away
prototyping– Evolutionary
prototyping
Requirements Gathering
and analysis
Quick Design
Building prototype, Customer evaluation,
refining design and prototype
![Page 82: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Spiral Model
Planning next phases
Review
Cumulative cost
![Page 83: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Spiral Model
• Advantages– Risk analysis and risk driven approach– Prototyping is important– Uses simulations, models and benchmarks– Reviews are done– Prepares for growth, evolution and changes
• Disadvantages– Matching to contract software– Relying on risk management expertise– Need for further elaboration of spiral steps
![Page 84: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Iterative development
![Page 85: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Iterative Development
• a.k.a iterative enhancement approach• Prototype + Water fall + Spiral = IDP• IBM OS/2 used this approach
![Page 86: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
OO Development
• Model the essential system– Use case
• Derive candidate essential classes– Found in external entities, data stores, input flows and
process specs.• Constrain the essential model
– Bring the target implementation environment into picture
• Derive additional classes– Add classes specific to implementation
![Page 87: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
OO Development
• Synthesize classes– Refinement of classes using OOP
• Define interfaces• Complete the design
– Interaction, states etc• Implement the solution
– Classes coded and unit tested
![Page 88: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Cleanroom Methodology
![Page 89: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Defect Prevention Process
![Page 90: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Process Maturity Framework and Quality Standards
![Page 91: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Agenda
• SEI Assessment• SPR Assessment• Malcolm Baldridge Assessment• ISO
![Page 92: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
SEI-CMM
• Initial– Chaotic, unpredictable cost, schedule and
quality performance• Repeatable
– Requirements management– Software project planning and management– Software subcontract management– SQA– SCM
![Page 93: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
SEI-CMM
• Defined– Organisational process improvement– Organisation process definition– Training program– Integrated software management– Software product engineering– Intergroup coordination– Peer reviews
![Page 94: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
SEI-CMM
• Managed– Process measurement and analysis– Quality management
• Optimizing– Defect Prevention– Technology innovation– Process change management
![Page 95: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
CMMI
• Initial– Processes are adhoc and chaotic
• Managed– Requirements management– Project planning– Project monitoring and control– Supplier agreement management– Measurement and analysis– Process and product qa– SCM
![Page 96: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
CMMI• Defined
– Requirements development– Technical solution– Product integration– Verification– Validation– Organizational process focus– Organization process definition– Integrated product management– Risk management– Decision analysis and resolution– Organizational environment for integration– Integrated teaming
![Page 97: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
CMMI• Qualitatively managed
– Organization process performance– Quantitative project management
• Optimizing– Organizational innovation and deployment– Causal analysis and resolution
• Capability level of individual process areas– L0 – In complete– L1 – Performed– L2 – Managed– L3 – Defined– L4 – Quantitatively Managed– L5 - Optimizing
![Page 98: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Software Productivity Research Assessment• 5 point scale
– Excellent, Good, Average, Below Average, Poor• Questions on
– Quality and productivity measurements– Pretest defect removal experience among programmers– Test defect removal experience among programmers– Project quality and reliability targets– Pretest defect removal at project level– Project testing defect removal– Post test defect removal
• Findings are grouped into– Projects and software products being assessed– Software technologies used– Software processes used– Ergonomics and work environment for staff– Personnel training for staff and management
![Page 99: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Malcolm Baldridge Assessment• Most prestigious quality award in US• 7 Categories and 28 examination items• Categories
– Leadership– Information and analysis– Strategic quality planning– HR utilization– Quality Assurance of product and services– Quality results– Customer Satisfaction
• Scoring is based on– Approach, Deployment and results
![Page 100: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Malcolm Baldridge Assessment• Purpose of assessment
– Elevate quality standards– Faciliate sharing and communication within
organization– Serve as working tool for planning, training,
assessment and other uses– Provide basis for making award– Provide feedback to applicants
• 1000 points in award criteria• Each exam item has a % score >70% will be
considered for award• Feedback is very important not the award
![Page 101: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
ISO
• Evaluated on 20 elements• Abroad about 60 – 70% organizations are
rejected• In India it is available at a cost!!!• Documentation, Documentation , Documentation
- all well tracked• Looks at both
– Product metrics– Process metrics
![Page 102: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Notes
• ISO and MB models are complementary• SEI and SPR looks at maturity of
organization• ISO and MB assess the organization
irrespective of the industry• We will now start focusing on
measurement and metrics which is used in all of the above !!!! from next class
![Page 103: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
BITS PilaniPilani Campus
Measurement and Metrics
Lecture 3-4
![Page 104: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Measurement and Metrics
![Page 105: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Agenda
• Metrics and Measures• Pitfalls• Some metrics for product, project and
process
![Page 106: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Measurement and Metrics
• Why measure?• Metrics
– Indicator of one or more quality criteria and we seek to measure
• Metric Characteristic– Must be clearly linked to the quality criteria– be sensitive to the different degrees of criteria– provide objective determination of criteria
which can be mapped to a suitable scale
![Page 107: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Example
• What are the ways to measure strength?• Metrics used can be
– Kg you can pull ?– Time you can run ?– Temperature you can bear ?
• How do we measure temperature?– Linear expansion – so ?
![Page 108: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Metrics• Type
– Predictive• Used for prediction
– Descriptive• Talks about the system at that instant
• Good metrics– Objective– Reliable– Valid– Standard– Comparable– Economical– Useful
![Page 109: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Common Metrics and Quality
• Readability, Complexity, Modularity, Testability of a document gives a measure for usability, maintainability
• Error prediction, detection gives a measure of correctness
• MTTF, Complexity gives a measure on reliability
![Page 110: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Limitation of Common Metrics
• Relationships, cannot be validated• Generally not objective• Quality is a relative quantity – not absolute• Depend on small set of measurable
parameters• Complete set of quality criteria not
measured• Metrics measure more than one criteria
![Page 111: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Simple Methods for calculating metrics• Simple scoring
– Scoring for each criteria – take average• Weighted scoring
– Same as above but add weights and divide by weight.
• Phased weighted score– Take different phases into account
• Polarity Profiling– Desirable vs achieved
![Page 112: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Complex Metrics
• Metrics are got from measures• Example
– Prove, the more rigorously the front end of the development process is executed, the better the quality at the back end.
– Steps• What is front end of development process?• What is backend of development process?
![Page 113: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Complex Metrics• Front end (rigorous)
– Inspection• Number of lines inspected • Final scoring of inspection on Liekert scale (very effective to poor inspection)
– Testing• Coverage• Defect rate in terms of KLOC
• Form Hypothesis– Higher the metrics during inspection, lower it will be during testing– Good final scoring leads to less defect rate– Good inspection and more coverage vs less defect
• Get Test data• Correlate with the hypothesis or do statistical analysis• If hypothesis confirms the data we are OK• If it refutes the data search for missing links
![Page 114: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Two ways
• Theory• Proposition• Hypothesis• Data Analysis
• Concept• Definition• Operational Definition
– Software defect rate• Measurements in the
real world
![Page 115: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Levels of measurement
• Nominal scale– Jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive
• Example– Types of software process
• Ordinal scale– a > b > c
• Interval or Ratio scales– A/B or A:B
![Page 116: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Basic Measures
• Ratio– a/b what if a > b
• Proportion– a + b + c = N => a/N + b/N + c/N = 1
• Percentage– Ratio / proportion expressed in terms of 100– Usually have a problem as % depends on base
• Rate– Dynamic measure – Associated with a changing quantity
![Page 117: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Six Sigma
• Stringent quality measure• 3.4 defective parts per million• Area under a curve for a normal
distribution
![Page 118: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Confidence Interval
σ 68.26894921371%
2σ 95.44997361036%
3σ 99.73002039367%
4σ 99.99366575163%
5σ 99.99994266969%
6σ 99.99999980268%
7σ 99.99999999974%
![Page 119: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Reliable measurements
• Depends on situation• Usually
– Index of Variation = Standard Deviation / Mean
• Reliability vs Validity– 100 % of the time wrong result– 10% right but others < 50%– 100% right all the time
![Page 120: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Measurement Errors
• Systematic measurement error– Related with validity– Can be overcome with averages
• Random measurement error– Related with reliability– Methods
• Test/retest• Alternative form• Split half method
• Finally Use Correlation but be carful while using it
![Page 121: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Correct Measure
A B
1. Causal,
2. Correlated,
3. No spurious relationship
![Page 122: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Metrics
• Product Metrics• Process Metrics • Project Metrics
![Page 123: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Product Metrics
• Mean Time To Failure– Error = Human mistake and incorrect s/w– Fault = Due to error and unit fails – Failure = Cannot function as per requirements
• Defect Density– Defect = Anamoly in the product– Calculated in terms of shipped source instructions
and changed source instructions• Customer problems• Customer satisfaction
![Page 124: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Function Points
• External inputs (3-6), outputs (4-7)• Internal(7-15), external files(5-10)• Queries (3-6)• Calculate weighted sum = FC• Take the 14 factors on 5 pt scale• Do Value adjustment
– VAF = 0.65 + 0.01 * sum (ci)• FP = FC * VAF
![Page 125: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
SEI - CMM
• Defect rate per function point• L1 = 0.75• L2 = 0.44• L3 = 0.27• L4 = 0.14• L5 = 0.05
![Page 126: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Process Quality metrics
• Defect Density during machine testing• Defect arrival pattern• Phase based defect removal pattern• Defect removal effectiveness
– DRE = Defects removed during dev phase / Defect latent in the product expressed as percentage
![Page 127: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Software Maintenance
• Fix backlog and backlog management index– BMI = Problems closed / problems arrived per month
in %• Fix response time and responsiveness
– Mean time for all problems closed• Precent delinquent fixes
– No of fixes that exceeded the response time criteria by severity level / Number of fixes delivered during that time as percentage
• Fix quality– Number of defective fixes / number of fixes as a
percentage
![Page 128: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/128.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Collecting data
• Establish goal for data collection• Develop list of questions• Establish data categories• Design and test data collection forms• Collecte and Validate data• Analyse data
![Page 129: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/129.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Case Study
• Read the metrics program of – Motorola – HP– IBM in your book
![Page 130: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/130.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Summary
Thanks
![Page 131: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/131.jpg)
BITS PilaniPilani Campus
Quality Management Systems
Lecture 5-6
![Page 132: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/132.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
History
• 3 Gurus– Deming
• Conformability and dependability• background in statistics• No posters
– Juran• whose idea of quality was fitness of purpose• No posters
– Crosby• Zero defects – book quality is free• Have poster campaign
• Edward Deming– Worked with Juran by accident
![Page 133: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/133.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Deming’s 14 point for management
• Constancy of purpose• A new philosophy
– Single source of supply than tenders• Cease dependence on inspection• End lowest tender contracts• Improve every process• Institute training on the job• Institute leadership
![Page 134: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/134.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Deming’s 14 point for management
• Drive out fear• Break down barriers• Eliminate exhortations• Eliminate targets• Permit pride of workmanship• Encourage education• Create top management structures
![Page 135: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/135.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Juran’s 10 steps for quality
• Build awareness of need and opportunity for improvement
• Set goals for improvement• Organize to reach the goals• Provide training• Carry out projects to solve problems
![Page 136: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/136.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Juran’s 10 steps for quality
• Report progress• Give recognition• Communicate results• Keep score• Maintain momemtum by making annual
improvement part of the regular process of the company
![Page 137: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/137.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Crosby
• Aims at defect prevention• Suggest quality vaccine
– Determination, Education, Implementation• 4 absolutes of quality
– Definition : Conformance to requirements– System : Prevention– Performance Standard : zero defects– Measurement : the price of non-conformance
![Page 138: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/138.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
14 steps of Crosby
• Make it clear that management is committed to quality
• Form QMT with each department represented
• Determine where the current and potential problems lie
![Page 139: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/139.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
14 steps of Crosby
• Evaluate cost of quality and explain its use as a tool
• Raise the quality of awareness and concern of all employees
• Take actions to correct problems identified• Establish a committee for the zero defects
programme
![Page 140: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/140.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
14 steps of Crosby
• Train supervisors to actively carry out their role in quality improvement
• Hold a “zero defects day” for all employees to highlight the changes
• Encourage individuals to establish improvement goals
![Page 141: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/141.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
14 steps of Crosby
• Encourage communication with management about obstacles to improvement
• Recognize and appreciate participants• Establish quality councils to aid
communication• Do it all over again to show it never ends.
![Page 142: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/142.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
QMS
• The organizational structure, responsibilities, procedures, processes and resources for implementing quality -ISO Definition
• Best – Gives a frame work
• Worst– Bureaucratic framework
• Must include– QA and Quality improvement
![Page 143: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/143.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
TQM
• A method for ridding people’s lives of wasted effort by involving everybody in the process of improving the effectiveness of work so that results are achieved in less time
• Kanji’s definition– Quality is to satisfy customer’s requirements
continually– Total quality is to achieve quality at low cost– Total quality management is to obtain total quality by
involving every one’s daily commitment
![Page 144: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/144.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
QIP
• Used to refine QMS• Elements of QMS
– Organizational structure– Responsibility– Procedure– Processes– Resources
• Establishment of quality culture part of QIP
![Page 145: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/145.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Monitoring quality
• Use the 7 tools described earlier
![Page 146: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/146.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Human factors in QMS
• Staff acceptance of procedures, tools and techniques
• Needs – management committement– Team approach– organizational quality climate
• Quality circle or quality improvement team
![Page 147: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/147.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
External standards
• Most people are cynical • Quality needs to be forced• Quality is a personal factor and hence
conflicts arise• Groupisms
– More revenue vs. quality
![Page 148: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/148.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Parts of QMS
• Development procedures– Methodology and use of tools, distribution of expertise
to maintain quality• Quality control
– Meetings, planning, user sign off, change control etc.• Quality improvement
– QIT, Quality circles• Quality Assurance
– Monitoring , assessment
![Page 149: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/149.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Benefits
• Cost• Timeliness• Reliability• Functionality• Maintainability
![Page 150: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/150.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Kaizen
• Emphasis is on improvement and inspection
• Quality must fully meet consumer needs• Customer centered view• Small cooperative groups and emphasis
on worker’s suggestions
![Page 151: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/151.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Questions?
![Page 152: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/152.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
ISO 9000 Series of Quality Management Standards
![Page 153: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/153.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Agenda
• Purpose of standard• Details of standard• Compliance • Audit• TickIT
![Page 154: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/154.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Purpose
• A model of best practice that needs to be followed / compared against
• Not a better way of designing things• Conformance to standard way• Implementation meets the standard over a
continuous time
![Page 155: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/155.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Types of accreditation
• First Party• Second Party
– Military suppliers• Third Party
![Page 156: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/156.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Advantages of accreditation
• Self confidence• External credibility• Part of tenders• Inclusion in buyer’s guide compiled by
accreditation bodies and circulated to potential customers
![Page 157: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/157.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Standards
• ISO 9000 – A guide to select appropriate standard
• 9001– Design, Development, Production, Installation and
Service• 9002
– Production and Installation• 9003
– Final inspection and testing• 9004
– Guidance for QMS to set up 1/2/3 standards
![Page 158: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/158.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Fundamental principles of ISO 9001 Model• Do it right the first time• It should fit the purpose
• 20 sub clauses under clause 4 are used
![Page 159: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/159.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Management Responsibility
• Provision of management representative• Responsible for quality and accountable to
senior management• Basic principles for establishing a quality
system are explained
![Page 160: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/160.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Quality System
• Organizational Quality System• Documented• Quality plan and manual must be prepared
![Page 161: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/161.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Contract Review
• Each customer order is a contract• Order entry procedures• Goals
– Customer requirements are given in writing– Highlight differences so that they are agreed– Ensure that requirements can be met
![Page 162: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/162.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Design Control• Control and verify design activities
– Planning for R & D– Assignment to qualified staff– Identify interfaces between relevant groups– Preparation of design brief– Production of technical data– Verification that output of the design phase
meets the input requirements– Identification of all changes and modification
and documenting the same
![Page 163: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/163.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Document Control
• Level 1 documents– Planning and policy documents
• Level 2 documents– Procedures
• Level 3 documents– Detailed instructions
![Page 164: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/164.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Purchasing
• All purchased products conform to the standards and requirements of the organization
• If the supplying organization has conformance to ISO, then the procedures are simplified
![Page 165: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/165.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Purchaser supplied product
• To trace all purchaser supplied product at every stage of the process as well as storage
![Page 166: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/166.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Product Identification and traceability• Procedure to trace products between
inputs and outputs• Enables quality problems to be traced to
the root causes
![Page 167: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/167.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Process Control
• Documented processes• Procedures for calibration• Documented instructions for staff
![Page 168: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/168.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Inspection and Testing
• Done at three stages– Incoming– In process– Outgoing
• Should not reveal many issues / bugs
![Page 169: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/169.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Inspection, measuring and testing equipment• Calibration of equipments• Maintenance of equipments at regular
intervals• Documentation of the above
![Page 170: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/170.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Inspection and Testing Status
• Awaiting inspection or test• Finished inspection
– Passed– Failed
![Page 171: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/171.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Control of nonconforming product
• Nonconformance– All products or services falling outside
tolerance limits agreed in advance with customer
• Identified, documented, physically separated
• Procedures needed for handling them• Selling of nonconforming products
allowed!!
![Page 172: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/172.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Corrective Action
• Records kept so that future audits can investigate its effectiveness
• Should have systematic procedures and have duties of all parties
![Page 173: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/173.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Handling storage packaging and delivery• All activities which are contractual
obligation to the customer• Subcontractors employed for transporation
subject to this
![Page 174: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/174.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Quality records
• Records must be fit for intended purpose• No specific format / structure
![Page 175: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/175.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Internal Quality Audits
• Documented• Internal auditors• Records for external auditors if needed• Corrective actions documented
![Page 176: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/176.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Training
• Implemented and documented• Written procedures to
– Establish training needs– Carry out training activities– Record training requirements– Record completion requirements
• Also informal knowledge sharing
![Page 177: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/177.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Service
• Servicing procedures are documented• Sufficient resources available• Set up good interfaces with the customer
for service
![Page 178: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/178.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Statistical Techniques
• Use where appropriated• Used in process control
![Page 179: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/179.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Seeking accredition
• Implement quality system with outside help
• Gain internal acceptance• Pre inspection quality audit by third party• Accredition body audit• Surprise inspection twice an year
![Page 180: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/180.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
ISO 9000-3 Notes for guidance of ISO9001 to s/w devSection 4 – Quality system frame work
Management responsibility, Quality system, internal audits, and corrective action
Section 5 – Quality system – lifecycle activitiesSection 6 – Quality system – supporting activities
Configuration management, measurement systems, practices and conventions, rules, tools and techniques
![Page 181: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/181.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
TickIT
• Boost awareness of certification and quality
• Survey results – read thebook• Third party accredition
![Page 182: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/182.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Questions
![Page 183: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/183.jpg)
BITS PilaniPilani Campus
Quality Tools
Lecture 5
![Page 184: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/184.jpg)
BITS PilaniPilani Campus
S. Raman
![Page 185: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/185.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Agenda
• Seven tools and their usage
![Page 186: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/186.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Statistical Tools
• Proposed by Ishikawa• Seven basic tools• Useful for project managers and leaders• does not provide developers the way to
improve quality
![Page 187: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/187.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Seven basic tools
Some books talks about check list instead of control charts
![Page 188: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/188.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Histogram
![Page 189: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/189.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Creating histogram
![Page 190: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/190.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Use of histogram
![Page 191: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/191.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Pareto Charts
![Page 192: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/192.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Pareto Charts - Construction
![Page 193: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/193.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Usage
![Page 194: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/194.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Example
![Page 195: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/195.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Cause Effect Diagram
![Page 196: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/196.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Construction Cause Effect
![Page 197: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/197.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Usage – Cause effect
![Page 198: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/198.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Example
![Page 199: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/199.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Scatter Diagrams
![Page 200: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/200.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Construction
![Page 201: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/201.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Usage
![Page 202: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/202.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Example
![Page 203: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/203.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Flow Charts
![Page 204: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/204.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Creation
![Page 205: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/205.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Use
![Page 206: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/206.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Run charts
![Page 207: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/207.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Creating Run charts
![Page 208: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/208.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Example
![Page 209: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/209.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Control Charts
![Page 210: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/210.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Development of Control Charts
![Page 211: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/211.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Usage
![Page 212: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/212.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Summary
![Page 213: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/213.jpg)
BITS PilaniPilani Campus
Models and Standards
for process improvements
![Page 214: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/214.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Why not ISO?
More documentation Patch work for software Mostly for blue collar jobs More focus on processes Less focus on results or analysis
![Page 215: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/215.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
CMM Initial
Undefined controls and processes Repeatable
Standardized methods for repeatable processes Defined
Monitors and improves processes Managed
Advanced controls, metrics and feedback Optimizing
Metrics for optimization purposes
![Page 216: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/216.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Level 1 - Initial
Chaotic processes Unpredictable cost, schedule and quality
performance Reasons
Unplanned commitments Gurus Magic Problems of scale
![Page 217: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/217.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Repeatable
Management commitment Project management systems Quarterly reviews
• Projects reviews Milestone, financial status, issues, staff comments
• Computing support review Performance measures, Issues
• Process Status Assessment updates, Technology plan status, AI status
• Organizational performance Productivity, Quality and AI Summary
![Page 218: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/218.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Repeatable
Project plan Planning
• Work break down structure Size and Estimation
• LoC, Function points Productivity and Scheduling
• User productivity• Project tracking and checkpoints
![Page 219: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/219.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Repeatable
Software Configuration Management Baselines
• Configuration control• Change management• Revisions, Versions, Deltas, Conditional code
Tools• System libraries
Releases• Authorized releases• Change control boards
![Page 220: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/220.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Repeatable
Software Quality Assurance SQA Plan
• To ensure appropriate development methodology• Standardize procedures and processes• Make projects auditable by external agencies• Change control measures
SQA People• Do not put fresh people
Independent Verification and Validation
![Page 221: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/221.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Defined Process
Software Standards Software Inspection
Inspection training Reports and Tracking
Software Testing Different Testing
![Page 222: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/222.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Defined Process
Advanced Configuration Management Design and Control Configuration during different phases Software Configuration Audit
Defining the software processes Process models
![Page 223: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/223.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Defined ProcessSoftware Engineering Process Groups
Role• Identify key problems• Establish priorities• Define Action plans• Get professional and management agreement• Assign people• Provide guidance• Launch• Track progress• Fix problems
Standards establishment Process Databases Education and Training Processes Consultation and Assessments
![Page 224: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/224.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Managed Processes
Data Gathering and Analysis Software measures and metrics Analysis
Managing Software Quality Measurement Criteria Estimating software quality Quality Goals Quality plans Tracking and controlling
![Page 225: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/225.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Optimizing Processes Defect Prevention
Processes• Cause – effect categories
Automating the software process Organizational plans Technology transitions
Software Contracting Negotiation Process management Certification
![Page 226: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/226.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Assessment Overview
Not an audit Review the organization’s software
capabilities and Advise the management and professionals
on how they can improve operations Identify high priority areas of improvement Only a guidance on improvement of
processes
![Page 227: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/227.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Assessment Phases
Preparation Senior management approval on commitment
to quality Training programme for the assessment team
Assessment Questions and matching answers and proofs
Recommendations Local team for putting action items in place
![Page 228: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/228.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Assessment Principles
Process model is the basis of assessment Confidentiality Senior management involvement Attitude of respect for the views of people
in the organization being assessed Action orientation
![Page 229: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/229.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Assessment Process - I
Form an assessment team Train the assessment team Confidentiality of assessment process Site manager or head participates in the
opening and closing assessment A person responsible to implement Action
Items are assigned
![Page 230: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/230.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Assessment Process - II
Day 1 Assessment Overview (Head, staff and
participants Briefing (participants) Questionnaire (project representatives)
• Completed for each project / project type Project discussions (project representatives)
• To clarify any questions and any evidence that is needed
![Page 231: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/231.jpg)
BITS Pilani, Deemed to be University under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956
Assessment Process - III Day 2
Functional areas interviews (functional rep) Preliminary findings (assess. team)
Day 3 Project discussions (project representatives) Findings formulation (assess. team)
Day 4 Findings Dry run (assess. team) Findings review (Project representatives) Findings presentation (Head, staff, participants) Senior management meeting (Head and assessment team
leader) Assessment postmortem (assessment team)
![Page 232: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/232.jpg)
Conducting Project Assessments
![Page 233: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/233.jpg)
Scope
• Assess end to end methodologies for the development and management of the project
• Overall development effectiveness and efficiency instead of in-process quality status and improvement opportunities
• Conducted by external people than in-project members
![Page 234: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/234.jpg)
Audit and Assessment
• Audit– IEEE
• An independent examination of a work product or a set of work products to assess compliance with specifications, standards, contractual agreements and other criteria
– ISO• Certification, third party assessment is carried out by an
independent organization against a particular standard
• Outcome– In compliance or not in compliance – Pass or fail
![Page 235: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/235.jpg)
Assessment
• A review of a software organization to advise its management and professionals on how they can improve their operation
• Assess maturity level vs. process roadmap• Identify current practices• Identify strength / weakness• find out causes for poor quality
![Page 236: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/236.jpg)
DoD’s mechanisms
• Evaluates a third party vendor• Audits them rather than assess them• Done by a second party• Assessments are of 3 types
– First party– Second Party– Third Party
![Page 237: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/237.jpg)
Assessment issues
• Organizational assessments– Sample project might lead to different
assessments– Organization of the company could be a factor
![Page 238: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/238.jpg)
Assessment issues• Project level assessments do not suffer from the
above issues– Meaningful factors must be included– Degree of implementation and effectiveness must be
measured– Exploratory and In-depth probing is a characteristic of
this assessment– Independent assessments must be made to be
objective• Both these assessments should be
complementary
![Page 239: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/239.jpg)
Software Process Assessment Cycle
• Select a team• Appraise the team• Expand on the assessment areas• Do a site visit• Find strengths and weaknesses• Create a KPA profile to present it to the
appropriate audience
![Page 240: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/240.jpg)
Rules• Team should be lead by a Lead Assessor• Team should have 4 – 10 members• Atleast one team member from the organization• Must complete the CMM Based Approach for
Internal Process Improvement training• Must use
– Standard Questionnaire– Individual and Group Interviews– Document reviews– Feedback from the review of draft findings
![Page 241: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/241.jpg)
Standard CMMI Assessment Method for Process Improvement
• Plan and preparation phase– Identify assessment scope– Develop assessment plan– Prepare and train assessment team– Make a brief assessment of participants– Administer the CMMI appraisal questionnaire– Examine Questionnaire responses– Conduct initial document review
![Page 242: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/242.jpg)
SCAMPI• Online assessment phase
– Conduct an opening meeting– Conduct interviews– Consolidate information– Prepare presentation of draft findings– Prepare draft findings– Consolidate, rate and prepare final findings
• Reporting– Present final findings– Conduct executive session– Wrap up the assessment
![Page 243: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/243.jpg)
Zahran’s Generic Process
![Page 244: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/244.jpg)
Proposed SPA Method• It is project based• Facts Gathering
– Project methodology review– State of practices review– Questionairre completion and response validation
• Questionairre customization – No standardized questionairre
• Observations analysis and recommendations go hand in hand with development
• Direct input to the project teams given
![Page 245: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/245.jpg)
Sample questionnaire
• What is the most common form of design reviews for this project?– On maturity
• To what extent were design reviews of the project conducted?– On project process
![Page 246: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/246.jpg)
Successful Projects
• Effective– planning, cost estimating, measurements,
milestones tracking, quality control, change management, development processes, communication, project managers, technical personnel, specialists, substantial amount of reusable materials
• Failing Projects– None of the above
![Page 247: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/247.jpg)
Example finding and recommendation
![Page 248: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/248.jpg)
Assessment report
• Project information and basic project data• Assessment approach• Brief description and observation of project team
practices• Strengths and Weaknesses, gap analysis• Critical success factors and major project pitfalls• What would they do differently?• Recommendations
![Page 249: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/249.jpg)
Question
• How is it different from audit report?
![Page 250: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/250.jpg)
Sample project taken for assessment
![Page 251: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/251.jpg)
Improvement plans for the project based on assessment
![Page 252: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/252.jpg)
Project Y
![Page 253: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/253.jpg)
Project Z
![Page 254: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/254.jpg)
Summary
![Page 255: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/255.jpg)
Dos and Don’ts of Software Process improvement
![Page 256: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/256.jpg)
SCAMPI Model Advantages
![Page 257: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/257.jpg)
Measuring Process capability
• 0 – 5 levels are used
• is this OK?
![Page 258: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/258.jpg)
Note
• Measuring levels is not enough– The SEPG implementing practices in the
project but the organization does not reach level x
– The organization has reached level x but most of the projects are not following the practices
![Page 259: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/259.jpg)
Note
• Alignment principle– Faster, Cheaper or better – pick one from
SEPG• Take time getting faster
– Be reliable rather than deliver on time
![Page 260: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/260.jpg)
Notes
• Keep it simple • Measure the value of process
improvement• Measuring process adoption
![Page 261: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/261.jpg)
Notes
• Measuring process compliance
• Celebrate the Journey Not the Destination
![Page 262: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/262.jpg)
Summary
![Page 263: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/263.jpg)
Thank you
Questions?
![Page 264: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/264.jpg)
Defect Removal Defect Removal EffectivenessEffectiveness
![Page 265: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/265.jpg)
Importance of this topicImportance of this topic
Defect Prevention in standardsDefect Prevention in standardsStatistical methodsStatistical methodsQuality improvementQuality improvementAffects schedulesAffects schedulesReduction in development timesReduction in development timesMeasure for effectiveness of defect Measure for effectiveness of defect removal processremoval process
![Page 266: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/266.jpg)
GrowthGrowth
Earlier daysEarlier daysOnly defect removal method was testingOnly defect removal method was testing
LaterLaterFormal reviewsFormal reviewsInspectionsInspections
Initial formula for error detection efficiencyInitial formula for error detection efficiencyErrors Found by an inspection
--------------------------------------- * 100 %
Total error in the product
![Page 267: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/267.jpg)
AnalysisAnalysis
If it is > 100 % then the inspection has If it is > 100 % then the inspection has found too many errors or the product was found too many errors or the product was not tested properly before inspection.not tested properly before inspection.
![Page 268: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/268.jpg)
What should be done to improve What should be done to improve DRE?DRE?
Code / Design inspectionCode / Design inspectionRequirements analysis and inspection Requirements analysis and inspection
NASA NASA –– Houston centerHouston centerIBM Houston center has proven the IBM Houston center has proven the relationship between DRE with product relationship between DRE with product qualityquality
![Page 269: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/269.jpg)
Other Definition of DREOther Definition of DRENumber of defects found in each phase
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * 100 %
Number of defects found in each phase + Number of defects found in subsequent activities (phases)
Total Defect Containment Effectiveness =
Number of pre release defects
========================================================
Number of prerelease defects + Number of post release defects
Phase Containment Effectiveness =
Number of phase i errors (found in dev phase)
======================================================
Number of phase i errors + Number of phase i defects (found later)
![Page 270: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/270.jpg)
DRE formal developmentDRE formal development
PhasePhase Injected Injected RemovedRemovedRequirementsRequirements Requirements / Functional Requirements / Functional
specificationspecificationRequirements analysis and Requirements analysis and reviewreview
HLDHLD Design workDesign work High level design inspectionHigh level design inspection
LLDLLD Design workDesign work LLD InspectionLLD Inspection
Coding Coding CodingCoding Code inspectionCode inspection
IntegrationIntegration IntegrationIntegration Build verification testingBuild verification testing
Unit testingUnit testing Bad fixesBad fixes TestingTesting
Component TestingComponent Testing Bad fixesBad fixes TestingTesting
System TestingSystem Testing Bad fixesBad fixes TestingTesting
![Page 271: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/271.jpg)
ProcessProcess
Defects existing Defects existing -- Defects injected Defects injected
Defects detected Defects detected –– Defects not detectedDefects not detected
Defects fixed Defects fixed –– Defects incorrectly fixedDefects incorrectly fixed
Remaining defectsRemaining defects
+
+
-
![Page 272: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/272.jpg)
Defect Origin vs. place found
ReqReq HLDHLD LLDLLD CC UTUT CTCT STST CSCS Tot.Tot.
I0I0
I1I1
I2I2
UTUT
CTCT
STST
FF
Tot.Tot.
4949 681681
![Page 273: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/273.jpg)
Use of the matrixUse of the matrix
Phase wise DRE can be foundPhase wise DRE can be found
Phase Defect Removal EffectivenessPhase Defect Removal EffectivenessOverall Inspection effectivenessOverall Inspection effectivenessTest effectivenessTest effectivenessRequirements effectivenessRequirements effectivenessDRE for development etc.DRE for development etc.
![Page 274: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/274.jpg)
DRE and Quality PlanningDRE and Quality PlanningUse control charts for quality planningUse control charts for quality planningThis can be done for each phaseThis can be done for each phaseSee the + and See the + and –– in the figure.in the figure.
Use this for Phase Based Defect removal model Use this for Phase Based Defect removal model to address questions like,to address questions like,
if we increase the effectiveness of unit testing by if we increase the effectiveness of unit testing by 5%, then what is the gain in final quality of the 5%, then what is the gain in final quality of the product?product?
![Page 275: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/275.jpg)
Cost EffectivenessCost Effectiveness
Defect removed at initial phases are less Defect removed at initial phases are less expensive than the ones removed at the expensive than the ones removed at the endendSo inverse of the absolute values in the So inverse of the absolute values in the matrix can be taken as matrix can be taken as weightageweightage!!!!!!Inspections can be modified to improve Inspections can be modified to improve effectiveness effectiveness
Having more than one inspectionHaving more than one inspection
![Page 276: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/276.jpg)
DRE and Process MaturityDRE and Process Maturity
Level 1 = 85%Level 1 = 85%Level 2 = 89%Level 2 = 89%L3 = 91%L3 = 91%L4 = 93%L4 = 93%L5 = 95%L5 = 95%
![Page 277: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/277.jpg)
L4 cumulative percentages of L4 cumulative percentages of Defects removed by phaseDefects removed by phase
Requirements 94%Requirements 94%HLD 95%HLD 95%LLD 96%LLD 96%Coding 94%Coding 94%IT = 75%IT = 75%ST = 70%ST = 70%AT = 70%AT = 70%
![Page 278: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/278.jpg)
Questions?Questions?
![Page 279: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/279.jpg)
In Process Software Testing Metrics
![Page 280: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/280.jpg)
Agenda
• To discuss metrics that have been proven to be efficient in the industry (IBM)
• Purpose of the metric, data, interpretation, use and real life example
![Page 281: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/281.jpg)
Test Progress S Curve
• Tests Planned for the week• Tests Attempted for the week• Actual Tests run for the week
![Page 282: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/282.jpg)
Scores to test cases
• Test cases are assigned scores depending on their criticality
• Every week you need to run x test cases and score over y points for tracking
• The total points is calculated as • SUM(yi) where the summation is done
over all the test cases
![Page 283: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/283.jpg)
Weekly activities
• Test Coverage weighing• Test score• Graph tracking• Find the disparity in testing between
planned and actual and look at schedule disparity ( > 15 % schedule skip by a week etc.)
![Page 284: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/284.jpg)
Problems with S-Curve approach
• Module wise details are missing• Steep S-curve means more test cases in
less period of time • All the questions regarding the test cases
must be reviewed• Curve might shift to the right indicating
project delay• What are the solutions for above?
![Page 285: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/285.jpg)
Other advantages
• For 2 consecutive releases overlapping the S curve gives more information on the front end / back end testing
![Page 286: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/286.jpg)
Testing Defect Arrivals over Time
• Discuss the following test arrival rate
![Page 287: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/287.jpg)
Testing Defect Arrivals
• Discuss the following
![Page 288: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/288.jpg)
TDAR
• Discuss the following
![Page 289: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/289.jpg)
Extrapolating Defect Arrival Pattern
• How to predict the defect volume• Lots of reliability models are available
![Page 290: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/290.jpg)
Defect Backlog Metric
• Discuss
![Page 291: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/291.jpg)
Product Size over time
• Discuss various boxes• Discuss the trend
![Page 292: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/292.jpg)
CPU Utilization
• Discuss this metric
![Page 293: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/293.jpg)
System Crashes and Hangs
• What does this tell?
![Page 294: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/294.jpg)
In process metric and quality management
• Use calendar time• Shipped time should be the reference for
X axis and every week the metrics need to be tracked
• Metrics should indicate good or bad status• Bad status for a metric should force
management action• Metrics should drive process
improvements
![Page 295: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/295.jpg)
The Effort Outcome model
• CELL 2 BEST-CASE SCENARIO.– GOOD QUALITY DESIGN / CODE– LOW ERROR INJECTION – EFFECTIVE TESTING.
• CELL 1 IS A GOOD/NOT BAD SCENARIO. – LATENT DEFECTS FOUND VIA EFFECTIVE TESTING.
• CELL 3 IS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO. – BUGGY CODE AND PROBABLY PROBLEMATIC DESIGNS– HIGH ERROR INJECTION DURING THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS. • CELL 4 IS THE UNSURE SCENARIO.
– CANNOT ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE LOWER DEFECT RATE IS A RESULT OF GOOD CODE QUALITY OR INEFFECTIVE TESTING.
![Page 296: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/296.jpg)
Merging S Curve and E/O Model
• Cell 2– Defect arrival lower, S curve ahead or same as
baseline• Cell 1
– Defect arrival higher, S curve ahead or same as baseline
• Cell 3– Late defect arrivals, S curve behind
• Cell 4– S curve behind, defect arrival lower in early part of the
curve
![Page 297: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/297.jpg)
Metrics for Vendor developed software
• % of test cases attempted• % of defects per executed test case• No. of failing test cases without defect
records• Success rate, persistent failure rate, • Defect injection rate, code completeness
![Page 298: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/298.jpg)
When is your product good to ship?
![Page 299: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/299.jpg)
Thanks / Questions?
![Page 300: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/300.jpg)
Complexity Metrics and Models
![Page 301: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/301.jpg)
Need
• White box testing• More granular measurement• Done at program module level• Helps software engineers to improve the
quality of their work
![Page 302: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/302.jpg)
Models and usage
• Reliability models– Researchers and software reliability practitioners – Need mathematics and statistics
• Quality Management models– Software quality professionals and project managers
• Software Complexity Research– Computer scientists and experimental software
engineers
![Page 303: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/303.jpg)
Most familiar LoC• Originated from Assembly language• Inverse relation ship with respect to LoC exists
until 500 lines of code– Reason is interface errors
• With advancement – concave models seem to suit better and the tail raises– Increase in module size is proportional to
comprehension of the same• Optimum program size for each language /
project can be found
![Page 304: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/304.jpg)
Halstead’s software science
• Given• n1 = number of distinct
operators in a program• n2 = number of distinct
operands in a program• N1 = number of operator
occurrences• N2 = number of operand
occurrence
• Vocabulary (n) = n1 + n2• Length (N) = N1 + N2
– = n1 log n1 + n2 log n2
• Volume (V) = N log n– = N log (n1+n2)
• Level (L) = V* / V• =(2/n1) x (n2 / N2)
• Difficulty (D) = V / V*– (n1 / 2) x (N2 / n2)
• Effort (E) = V / L• Faults (B) = V / S*
V* = minimum volume represented by a built-in function performing the task of the entire program
S* = Mean number of mental decisions
![Page 305: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/305.jpg)
Cyclomatic complexity• Indicates program’s
testability and understandability
• Denotes number of regions in a graph
• Gives the linearly independent path that comprises of the program
• Effort required to test the program
• M = V(G) = e – n + 2p
• V(G) = Cyclomatic number of G
• e = number of edges• n = number of nodes• p = number of
unconnected parts of the graph
• Also equal to number of binary decision (if) + 1
![Page 306: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/306.jpg)
Recommendation
• Cyclomatic complexity must be less than 10
• Has moderate to strong correlation with defect rates
![Page 307: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/307.jpg)
Uses
• To help identify overly complex parts needing detailed inspections
• To help identify non complex parts likely to have a low defect rate and therefore candidates for development without detailed inspection
• To estimate programming and service effort, identify troublesome code and estimate testing effort
![Page 308: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/308.jpg)
Syntactic Constructs
• Complexity takes into account only if then else's
• Studies were done taking into account different constructs
• Programmers found it difficult to understand the “do- while” construct
![Page 309: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/309.jpg)
Structure metrics• Takes into account the interaction between the
modules of a product• Most important
– Fan-in = count of the modules that call a given module
– Fan-out = count of the modules that are called by a given module
• Modules with more Fan-in have insignificant correlation with defect levels
• Modules with more Fan-out have positive correlation with defects
![Page 310: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/310.jpg)
Summary
• Two types of metrics– Syntactic constructs– Structure
• Measure both• Applied for software engineers• Other type of metrics
– Reliability– Project related
![Page 311: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/311.jpg)
Measuring and Analyzing Customer Satisfaction
![Page 312: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/312.jpg)
Need
• TQM point of view– Integrates product quality with customer
satisfaction• Enhancing CS is the bottom-line for any
business• Customer focus is the only way to retain
the business• News of dissatisfied customer goes out
twice as fast as a satisfied customer
![Page 313: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/313.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys
• Source– telephone follow-up– customer complaint data– direct customer visits– customer advisory councils– user conferences
• Must cover the entire customer base
![Page 314: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/314.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys• Methods
– Face to face interviews• prestructured questionnaire• limitation is cost factor concerning the interviewer• Biases can be introduced in the data by a wrong interviewer• Unbiased interviewer
– telephone interviews• should be short and impersonal• can be monitored for improvements• must be short• lack of direct interaction• lack of using exhibits• Limited group of respondents
![Page 315: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/315.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys– mailed questionnaires
• Less expensive• less response rates• may introduce bias• more analysis needed• questions must be pre-tested
• Summarizing order– In person– phone – mail
![Page 316: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/316.jpg)
Sampling Methods
• Use scientific probability sampling methods– simple random sampling
• Every sample can be selected with p = 1/n– systematic sampling
• Take every kth individual– stratified sampling
• group into overlapping “strata”– cluster sampling
• Group into clusters such as geographical unit
![Page 317: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/317.jpg)
Sample Size
• Sample size depends on– confidence level– margin of error
• Statistical formulas are available for determining sample size
![Page 318: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/318.jpg)
Analyzing Satisfaction Data
• 5 point scale• Confidence intervals can also be a part of
the bar or run charts which show the scale• Some choose customer dissatisfaction as
a metric
![Page 319: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/319.jpg)
Analyzing Satisfaction Data
• Find specific attribute satisfaction and Overall satisfaction– Area of weakness NEED NOT be the priority
of improvement– E.g.. Documentation and reliability
• Correlate between attributes and overall satisfaction– For example 93.8 % reliability figure with high
correlation to CS
![Page 320: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/320.jpg)
Satisfaction with company
• Overall satisfaction and Loyalty of a customer has been attributed to– set of common attributes of the company– satisfaction levels of dimensions of the entire
company• Company and Product = Customer
satisfaction• Examples
![Page 321: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/321.jpg)
Example• Technical solutions
– R, A, Ease of use, pricing, installation• Support & Service
– Flexible, accessible, product knowledge• Marketing
– Solution, central point of contact, information• Administration
– purchasing, billing, warranty expiration, notification• Delivery
– on time, accurate, post delivery process• Company image
– technology leader, financial stability, executives image
![Page 322: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/322.jpg)
How much CS is good?
• Long term goal = 100 %• Tradeoff between customer satisfaction
and market share• Babich formula
![Page 323: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/323.jpg)
So what do you do?
• Also monitor your competitors CS• perform analyses on specific satisfaction
dimensions, quality attributes of products, strength, weakness, prioritization
• Do RCA to identify inhibitors in each dimension
• Set satisfaction targets• Formulate and implement action plans
![Page 324: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/324.jpg)
Other than this do
• post purchase call back• Complaint management process
![Page 325: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/325.jpg)
Summary
• Various methods for CS• Methods• Sampling• Analyzes• Beyond customer satisfaction
![Page 326: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/326.jpg)
In process quality assessment
![Page 327: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/327.jpg)
Need
• Your quality program is on track to satisfy the objectives
• Find out the current and future risks on the project
• Meet quality expectation of customers• Method
– Preparation, Evaluation, Summarization and Recommendations
![Page 328: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/328.jpg)
Assessment and Audit
• Audit– Compares actual process with the defined
process• Assessment
– What is occurring?– What is the difference between right results
and results obtained?– What is the likely result?
![Page 329: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/329.jpg)
In process assessment
• Should be integral to project management• Example
![Page 330: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/330.jpg)
Preparation
• Depends on the development process– Expect only fewer metrics to be available
during initial phases– Concentrate on process steps being followed
during initial phases
![Page 331: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/331.jpg)
Example
![Page 332: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/332.jpg)
Caution
• Also look at qualitative data• Find out who you want to talk to?• Find out what you want to talk about?• Get variety of people including developers,
testers etc.• Frame questions
– Where are we?– What’s the outlook etc?
![Page 333: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/333.jpg)
Evaluation
• Quantitative data– 7 tools– Get useful information
• Pay attention to things that are abnormal• Example
![Page 334: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/334.jpg)
Evaluation
• Qualitative data– Use metrics
• Use expert opinion• Criteria
– Use expert judgment and cross validation for your judgment
– Use dashboards G,Y, R
![Page 335: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/335.jpg)
Summarization
• Summarize using– Impact Ranking– Comparison with previous known issues– Identify what is done right
• Example
![Page 336: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/336.jpg)
Overall Assessment Summarization
• Overall assessment is made the bottom line– Red – high probability of not meeting the
quality goals or customer quality expectations– Yellow – moderate risk of not meeting the
quality goals or customer quality expectations– Green – likely to meet product quality goals
and satisfy customer quality expectations
![Page 337: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/337.jpg)
Desirable vs. undesirable scenario
• With every audit you move from Red to Green and not vice versa
R
Y
G
QA1 QA2 QA3 QA4 QA5 QA6 QA7 QA8
![Page 338: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/338.jpg)
Recommendation
• Recommendations are part of assessment summary
• No magic formula• Various questions can be answered based
on the investigation findings
![Page 339: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/339.jpg)
Risk Mitigation
![Page 340: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/340.jpg)
Summary
• What is in-process quality audit?• What is a good assessment?• Store assessment records• Record lessons learned• Assessment depends on assessor• Manage risks based on assessments
![Page 341: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/341.jpg)
Statistical Quality Control
![Page 342: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/342.jpg)
Quality and Variability Variability is the enemy of quality Variability can be controlled using
Inspection Prevention
Use statistial process control
![Page 343: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/343.jpg)
SPC Two type of variability
Random Variation Systematic Variation
![Page 344: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/344.jpg)
Mean Control Charts Center line is the control line Lower Control Limit Upper Control Limit Process statistics must fall between LCL and
UCL Process is in Control if the values fall in
between LCL and UCL and are random Any pattern implies the process may be out of
control
![Page 345: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/345.jpg)
Using LCL and UCL Once statistics shows that the process is out of
control, use the fish bone diagram or other means to find the root cause and get the process in control
![Page 346: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/346.jpg)
Using Mean Control Charts Calculate grand mean given the data
Grand mean = sum of all observations ---------------------------------- (Number of samples * number of
observations in each sample) LCL = Grand mean - ((3 * mean range) / (d2 *
sqrt(n))) UCL = Grand mean + (( 3 * mean range)/ (d2 *
sqrt(n))) d2 will be given as a table for each sample size
![Page 347: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/347.jpg)
Using Mean Control Charts Calculate Grand Mean Calculate RANGE MEAN Check value of d2 Get the LCL and UCL Study the pattern of the control chart Make conclusions
![Page 348: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/348.jpg)
Decision Tree Analysis Define the problem in structured terms Model the decision process as a decision tree Apply the appropriate probability values and
financial data Solve the decision tree Perform Sensitivity Analysis List the underlying assumptions
![Page 349: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/349.jpg)
Thank you
![Page 350: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/350.jpg)
Software Quality Model Requirements for Software Quality Engineering
Marc-Alexis Côté M. Ing ([email protected])
Witold Suryn PhD ([email protected])
Elli Georgiadou ([email protected])
Keywords Software Quality Engineering, Software Quality Models, ISO/IEC 9126.
Abstract Software Quality Engineering is an emerging discipline that is concerned with improving the approach to software quality. It is important that this discipline be firmly rooted in a quality model satisfying its needs. In order to define the needs of this discipline, the meaning of quality is broadly defined by reviewing the literature on the subject. Software Quality Engineering needs a quality model that is usable throughout the software lifecycle and that it embraces all the perspectives of quality. The goal of this paper is to propose a quality model suitable for such a purpose, through the comparative evaluation of existing quality models and their respective support for Software Quality Engineering.
Introduction Over the last decade, the general focus of the software industry has shifted from providing ever more functionality to improving what has been coined as the user experience. The user experience refers to characteristics such as ease-of-use, security, stability and reliability. Improvements in such areas lead to an improved quality as perceived by the end users. Some software products, most notably Microsoft's next iteration of their Windows operating system, have been delayed by as much as two years in order to improve their quality. There is no doubt that software quality is becoming an increasingly important subject in software engineering.
Traditionally, software requirements have been classified either as functional or non-functional with eventual notions of quality hidden in the latter. As the industry focus is shifting from functionality to improving quality, a new category of requirements focused on quality is emerging. In order to define these new quality requirements, quality itself must be defined. A quality model provides the framework towards a definition of quality. Engineers have long recognised that in order for something to find its way in a product, it should be properly defined and specified. Unfortunately, the push towards software quality that can be observed in the industry today is lacking a solid foundation in the form of an agreed upon quality model that can be used not only to evaluate software quality, but also to specify it.
Bourque (2000) suggests that the implementation of quality in a software product is an effort that should be formally managed throughout the Software Engineering lifecycle. The implementation of quality should therefore begin with the specification of user quality requirements. Such an approach to the implementation of quality leads to Software Quality Engineering. Suryn (2003) has suggested that this discipline be defined as the application of a
![Page 351: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/351.jpg)
continuous, systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development and maintenance of quality of software products and systems; that is, the application of quality engineering to software.
The objective of this paper is to identify the requirements for a software quality model to be used as a foundation to Software Quality Engineering.
Definition of Software Quality What exactly constitutes the quality of a product is often the subject of a hot debate. The reason the concept of quality is so controversial is that people fail to agree on what it means. For some it is “[the] degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements” (ISO/IEC 1999b) while for others it can be synonymous with “customer value” (Highsmith, 2002), or even “defect levels” (Highsmith, 2002). A possible explanation as to why any of these definitions fail to garner a consensus is that they generally fail to recognize the different perspectives of quality. Kitchenham and Pfleeger (1996), by reporting the teachings of David Garvin, report on the 5 different perspectives of quality:
• The transcendental perspective deals with the metaphysical aspect of quality. In this view of quality, it is “something toward which we strive as an ideal, but may never implement completely.” (Kitchenham & Pfleeger, 1996);
• The user perspective is concerned with the appropriateness of the product for a given context of use. Kitchenham and Pfleeger further note that “whereas the transcendental view is ethereal, the user view is more concrete, grounded in the product characteristics that meet user's needs”;
• The manufacturing perspective represents quality as conformance to requirements. This aspect of quality is stressed by standards such as ISO 9001, which defines quality as “[the] degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements” (ISO/IEC 1999b). Other models, like the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) state that the quality of a product is directly related to the quality of the engineering process, thus emphasising the need for a manufacturing-like process;
• The product perspective implies that quality can be appreciated by measuring the inherent characteristics of the product. Such an approach often leads to a bottom-up approach to software quality: by measuring some attributes of the different components composing a software product, a conclusion can be drawn as to the quality of the end product;
• The final perspective of quality is value-based. This perspective recognises that the different perspectives of quality may have a different importance, or value, to various stakeholders.
One could argue that in a world where conformance to ISO and IEEE standards is increasingly present in contractual agreements and used as a marketing tool (Adey & Hill, 2000), all the perspectives of quality are subordinate to the manufacturing view. This importance of the manufacturing perspective has increased throughout the years through works like Quality is Free (Crosby, 1979) and the popularity of movements like Six-Sigma (Biehl, 2001). The predominance of the manufacturing view in Software Engineering can be traced back to the 1960s, when the US Department of Defense and IBM gave birth to Software Quality Assurance (Voas, 2003). This has led to the belief that adherence to a development process, as in manufacturing, will lead to a quality product. The corollary to this belief is that process improvement will lead to improved product quality. According to many renowned researchers, this belief is false, or at least flawed. Geoff Dromey states:
![Page 352: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/352.jpg)
“The flaw in this approach [that you need a quality process to produce a quality product] is that the emphasis on process usually comes at the expense of constructing, refining, and using adequate product quality models.” (Dromey, 1996)
Kitchenham and Pfleeger reinforce this opinion by stating:
“There is little evidence that conformance to process standards guarantees good products. In fact, the critics of this view suggest that process standards guarantee only uniformity of output [...]” (Kitchenham & Pfleeger, 1996)
Furthermore, data available from Agile (Highsmith, 2002) projects show that high quality is attainable without following a manufacturing-like approach.
However, recent studies conducted at Motorola (Eickelman, 2003; Diaz & Sligo, 1997) and Raytheon (Haley, 1996) show that there is indeed a correlation between the maturity level of an organization as measured by the Capability Maturity Model and the quality of the resulting product. These studies provide data on how a higher maturity level (as measured by the CMM) can lead to:
• Improved error/defect density (i.e. the error/defect density lowers as maturity improves)
• Lower error rate
• Lower cycle time (time to complete parts of the lifecycle)
• Better estimation capability
From these results, one could conclude quality can be improved by following a mature process. Georgiadou (2003a) studied the development of lifecycle models, and established that the maturity of the development process is reflected by the emphasis and location of testing and other quality assurance activities. Her study demonstrated that the more mature the process and its underlying lifecycle model the earlier the identification of errors in the deliverables. However, these measured improvements are directly related to the manufacturing perspective of quality. Therefore, such quality improvement efforts fail to address the other perspectives of quality. This might be one of the reasons that some observers of the software development scene perceive the “quality problem” as one of the main failings of the software engineering industry. Furthermore, studies show that improvement efforts grounded in the manufacturing perspective of quality are difficult to scale down to smaller projects and/or smaller teams (Laitinen, 2000; Boddie, 2000). Indeed, rather than being scaled down in smaller projects, these practices are simply not performed.
Over recent years, researchers have proposed new models that try to encompass more perspectives of quality than just the manufacturing view. Geoff Dromey (1995; 1996) proposed such model a model in which the quality of the end product is directly related to the quality of the artifacts that are a by-product of the process being followed. Therefore, he developed different models that can be used to evaluate the quality of the requirements model, the design model and the resulting software. The reasoning is that if quality artifacts are conceived and produced throughout the lifecycle, then the end product will manifest attributes of good quality. This approach can clearly be linked to the product perspective of quality with elements from the manufacturing view. This is certainly a step forward from the manufacturing-only approach described above, but it fails to view the engineering of quality as a process that covers all the perspectives of quality. Pfleeger (2001) warns against approaches that focus only on the product perspective of quality:
![Page 353: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/353.jpg)
“This view [the product view] is the one often advocated by software metrics experts; they assume that good internal quality indicators will lead to good external ones, such as reliability and maintainability. However, more research is needed to verify these assumptions and to determine which aspects of quality affect the actual product's use.”
Georgiadou (2003b) developed a generic, customisable quality model (GEQUAMO) which enables any stakeholder to construct their own model depending on their requirements. In a further attempt to differentiate between stakeholders Siaka et al (1997) studied the viewpoints of users, sponsors and developers as three important constituencies/stakeholders and suggested attributes of interest to each constituency as well as level of interest. More recently, Siaka and Georgiadou (2005) reported the results of a survey amongst practitioners (from the UK, Greece, Egypt and Cyprus) on the importance placed on product quality characteristics. Using their empirical results they extended ISO 9126 by adding two new characteristics namely Extensibility and Security which have gained in importance in today’s global and inter-connected environment.
The above observations illustrate the main disagreements that exist in both the research community and the industry on the subject of software quality. The goal of a quality model is in essence to provide an operational definition of quality. While specific definitions have been established for given contexts, there is no consensus as to what constitutes quality in the general sense in software engineering. A first requirement for a software quality model to be useful as a foundation for Software Quality Engineering is thus to encompass all the perspectives of quality mentioned at the beginning of this section.
Specification and evaluation of quality Software Quality Engineering calls for a formal management of quality throughout the lifecycle. In order to support this requirement, a quality model should have the ability to support both the definition of quality requirements and their subsequent evaluation. This can be explained by referring to the manufacturing perspective of quality, which states that quality is conformance to requirements. A quality model that is to be used as the foundation for the definition of quality requirements should help in both the specification of quality requirements and the evaluation of software quality.
IEEE Std 1061-1998 (IEEE, 1998) defines this as a top to bottom and bottom to top approach to quality:
From a top down perspective the [quality] framework facilitates:
• Establishment of quality requirements factors, by customers and managers early in a system's life cycle;
• Communication of the established quality factors, in terms of quality sub-factors, to the technical personnel;
• Identification of metrics1 that are related to the established quality factors and quality sub-factors.
From a bottom up perspective the [quality] framework enables the managerial and technical personnel to obtain feedback by
1 In 2002, the ISO/IEC JTC1 sub-committee SC7 – Systems and Software Engineering – replaced the term “metric” by “measure” to align its vocabulary with the one used in metrology. This thesis will use the term measure whenever possible.
![Page 354: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/354.jpg)
• Evaluating the software products and processes at the metrics level;
• Analysing the metric values to estimate and assess the quality factors.
A quality model that is to be used as the foundation for the definition of quality requirements should help in both the specification of quality requirements and the evaluation of software quality. In other words, it should be usable from the top of the development process to the bottom and from the bottom to the top.
Evaluation of quality models Three requirements that a quality model should possess to be a foundation for Software Quality Engineering have been identified:
• A quality model should support the 5 different perspectives of quality as defined by Kitchenham and Pfleeger (1996);
• A quality model should be usable from the top to the bottom of the lifecycle as defined by IEEE Std 1061-1998 (IEEE, 1998), i.e. should allow for defining quality requirements and their further decomposition into appropriate quality characteristics, subcharacteristics and measures;
• A quality model should be usable from the bottom to top of the lifecycle as defined by IEEE Std 1061-1998 (IEEE, 1998), i.e. should allow for required measurements and subsequent aggregation and evaluation of obtained results.
Four quality models will be evaluated with respect to these requirements.
McCall McCall (McCall, Richards & Walters, 1977) introduced his quality model in 1977. According to Pfleeger (2001), it was one of the first published quality models. Figure 1 presents this quality model. Each quality factor on the left hand side of the figure represents an aspect of quality that is not directly measurable. On the right hand side are the measurable properties that can be evaluated in order to quantify the quality in terms of the factors. McCall proposes a subjective grading scheme ranging from 0 (low) to 10 (high).
Regarding this model, Pressman notes that “unfortunately, many of the metrics defined by McCall et al. can be measured only subjectively” (Pressman, 2001). It is therefore difficult to use this framework to set precise and specific quality requirements. Furthermore, some of the factors and measurable properties, like traceability and self-documentation among others, are not really definable or even meaningful at an early stage for non-technical stakeholders. This model is not applicable with respect to the criteria outlined in the IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology for a top to bottom approach to quality engineering. Furthermore, it emphasises the product perspective of quality to the detriment of the other perspectives. It is therefore not suited as a foundation for Software Quality Engineering according to the stated premises.
![Page 355: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/355.jpg)
Figure 1: McCall’s Quality Model
Adapted from Pfleeger (2003) and McCall et al. (1977)
Boehm Boehm's quality model improves upon the work of McCall and his colleagues (Boehm, Brown, Kaspar, Lipow & MacCleod, 1978). As Figure 2 shows, this quality model loosely retains the factor-measurable property arrangement. However, for Boehm and his colleagues, the prime characteristic of quality is what they define as “general utility”. According to Pfleeger (2001), this is an assertion that first and foremost, a software system must be useful to be considered a quality system. For Boehm, general utility is composed of as-is utility, maintainability and portability (Boehm et al., 1976):
• How well (easily, reliably, efficiently) can I use it [software system] as-is?
• How easy is it to maintain (understand, modify, and retest)?
• Can I still use it if I change my environment?
If the semantics of McCall's model are used as a reference, the quality factors could be defined as: Portability, Reliability, Efficiency, Human Engineering, Testability, Understandability and Modifiability. These factors can be decomposed into measurable properties such as Device Independence, Accuracy, Completeness, etc. Portability is somewhat incoherent in this classification as it acts both as a top level component of general utility, and as a factor that possesses measurable attributes.
![Page 356: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/356.jpg)
Figure 2: Boehm’s quality model
Adapted from Pfleeger (2003), Boehm et al. (1976; 1978)
It is interesting to note that in opposition to McCall's model, Boehm's model is decomposed in a hierarchy that at the top addresses the concerns of end-users while the bottom is of interest to technically inclined personnel. It is in effect the emergence of the user perspective of quality. However, this interest wanes when one reads Boehm's definition of the characteristics of software quality. Except for General Utility and As-is Utility, all definitions begin with “Code possesses the characteristic [...]”. The measurable properties and characteristics therefore concentrate on highly technical details of quality that are difficult to grasp for non-technical stakeholders that are typically involved early in the software lifecycle. The characteristics General Utility and As-is Utility are too generic and imprecise to be useful for defining verifiable requirements. Like the McCall model, this model is mostly useful for a bottom to top approach to software quality (i.e. it can effectively be used to define measures of software quality, but is more difficult to use to specify quality requirements).
While this model is a step forward in the sense that it provides basic support for a top to bottom approach to software quality, this support is too ephemeral to be considered as a solid foundation for quality engineering.
Dromey Dromey's (1995) model takes a different approach to software quality then the two previously presented models. For Dromey, a quality model should clearly be based upon the product perspective of quality:
“What must be recognized in any attempt to build a quality model is that software does not directly manifest quality attributes. Instead it exhibits product characteristic that imply or contribute to quality attributes and other characteristics (product defects) that detract from the quality attributes of a product. Most models of software quality fail to deal with the product characteristics side of the problem adequately and they also fail to make the
![Page 357: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/357.jpg)
direct links between quality attributes and corresponding product characteristics.” (Dromey, 1995) (Emphasis added to support the argument)
Dromey has built a quality evaluation framework that analyzes the quality of software components through the measurement of tangible quality properties (Figure 3). Each artifact produced in the software lifecycle can be associated with a quality evaluation model. Dromey gives the following examples of what he means by software components for each of the different models:
• Variables, functions, statements, etc. can be considered components of the implementation model;
• A requirement can be considered a component of the requirements model;
• A module can be considered a component of the design model;
• Etc.
According to Dromey (1995), these components all possess intrinsic properties that can be classified into four categories:
• Correctness: Evaluates if some basic principles are violated.
• Internal: Measure how well a component has been deployed according to its intended use.
• Contextual: Deals with the external influences by and on the use of a component.
• Descriptive: Measure the descriptiveness of a component (for example, does it have a meaningful name?).
These properties are used to evaluate the quality of the components. This is illustrated in Figure 4 for a variable component present in the implementation model.
Figure 3 : Dromey’s Quality Model
![Page 358: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/358.jpg)
Figure 4 : Quality evaluation of a variable component
It seems obvious from the inspection of the previous figures that Dromey's model is focused on the minute details of quality. This is stated explicitly:
“What we can do is identify and build in a consistent, harmonious, and complete set of product properties (such as modules without side effects) that result in manifestations of reliability and maintainability.” (Dromey, 1996)
For Dromey, the high level characteristics of quality will manifest themselves if the components of the software product, from the individual requirements to the programming language variables1, exhibit quality-carrying properties. Dromey's hypothesis should be questioned. If all the components of all the artifacts produced during the software lifecycle exhibit quality-carrying properties, will the resulting product manifest characteristics such as maintainability, functionality, and others?
The following analogy will be useful in answering this question:
If you buy the highest quality flour, along with the highest quality apples and the highest quality cinnamon, will you automatically produce an apple pie that is of the highest quality?
The answer is obviously negative. In addition to quality ingredients, at least three more things are needed in order to produce an apple pie of the highest quality:
• A recipe (i.e. an overall architecture and an execution process). Dromey acknowledges this by identifying process maturity as a desirable high level characteristic. However, it is only briefly mentioned in both his publications on the subject (Dromey, 1995; Dromey, 1996).
• The consumer's tastes must be taken into account. In order for the result to be considered of the highest quality by the consumer, it needs to be tuned to his tastes. This is akin to what is commonly called user needs in software engineering. User
![Page 359: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/359.jpg)
needs are completely ignored by Dromey. However, as it was demonstrated in the introduction, they are an integral and non-negligible part of software quality.
• Someone with the qualifications and the tools to properly execute the recipe.
While Dromey's work is interesting from a technically inclined stakeholder's perspective, it is difficult to see how it could be used at the beginning of the lifecycle to determine user quality needs. Dromey (1995) states that software quality “must be considered in a systematic and structured way, from the tangible to the intangible”. By focusing too much on the tangible, Dromey fails to build a model that is meaningful for stakeholders typically involved at the beginning of the lifecycle. Do end users care about the variable naming convention or module coupling? In most cases, it is doubtful that this question can be answered affirmatively. Therefore, this model is rather unwieldy to specify user quality needs. This does not mean that it cannot be useful later on as a checklist for ensuring that product quality is up to standards. It can definitely be classified as a bottom to top approach to software quality.
Furthermore, as was illustrated at the beginning of this section, this quality model has its roots in the product perspective of quality, to the detriment of other perspectives. Therefore, it fails to qualify as a foundation for Software Quality Engineering according to the established requirements.
ISO/IEC 9126 In 1991, the International Organization for Standardization introduced a standard named ISO/IEC 9126 (1991): Software product evaluation - Quality characteristics and guidelines for their use. This standard aimed to define a quality model for software and a set of guidelines for measuring the characteristics associated with it. ISO/IEC 9126 quickly gained notoriety with IT specialists in Europe as the best way to interpret and measure quality (Bazzana, Anderson & Jokela, 1993). However, Pfleeger (2001) reports some important problems associated with the first release of ISO/IEC 9126:
• There are no guidelines on how to provide an overall assessment of quality.
• There are no indications on how to perform the measurements of the quality characteristics.
• Rather than focusing on the user view of software, the model's characteristics reflect a developer’s view of software.
According to Pfleeger, this first incarnation of ISO/IEC 9126 is not usable as a bottom up approach to quality engineering, and even less usable as a top down approach.
In order to address these concerns, an ISO committee began working on a revision of the standard. The results of this effort are the introduction of a revised version of ISO/IEC 9126 focusing on the quality model, and a new standard, ISO/IEC 14598 (ISO/IEC, 1999a) focusing on software product evaluation. ISO/IEC 14598 addresses Pfleeger's first concern while the revision to ISO/IEC 9126 aims to resolve the second and third issues. ISO/IEC 9126 is now a four part standard:
• ISO/IEC 9126-1 (ISO/IEC, 2001a) defines an updated quality model.
• ISO/IEC 9126-2 (ISO/IEC, 2003a) defines a set of external measures.
• ISO/IEC 9126-3 (ISO/IEC, 2003b) defines a set of internal measures.
• ISO/IEC 9126-4 (ISO/IEC, 2001b) defines a set of quality in use measures.
![Page 360: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/360.jpg)
The new quality model defined in ISO/IEC 9126-1 recognises three aspects of software quality and defines them as follows: (the full definition is given as it is pertinent to the discussion that ensues).
• Quality in Use:
Quality in use is the user's view of the quality of the software product when it is used in a specific environment and a specific context of use. It measures the extent to which users can achieve their goals in a particular environment, rather than measuring the properties of the software itself. (ISO/IEC, 2001a)
• External quality:
External quality is the totality of characteristics of the software product from an external view. It is the quality when the software is executed, which is typically measured and evaluated while testing in a simulated environment with simulated data using external metrics. During testing, most faults should be discovered and eliminated. However, some faults may still remain after testing. As it is difficult to correct the software architecture or other fundamental design aspects of the software, the fundamental design remains unchanged throughout the testing. (ISO/IEC, 2001a)
• Internal Quality:
Internal quality is the totality of characteristics of the software product from an internal view. Internal quality is measured and evaluated against the Internal Quality requirements. Details of software product quality can be improved during code implementation, reviewing and testing, but the fundamental nature of the software product quality represented by the Internal Quality remains unchanged unless redesigned. (ISO/IEC, 2001a)
The Internal and External Quality model is inspired from McCall and Boehm's work. It is a three-layer model composed of quality characteristics, quality subcharacteristics and quality measures. Figure 5 illustrates this model. More than 100 measures of Internal and External Quality are proposed as part of the standard. It is important to note that the measures do not make an exhaustive set, which means that other measures can also be used.
Finally, Quality in Use is modeled in a different way than Internal and External Quality. Figure 6 illustrates the two-layer Quality in Use model composed of characteristics and quality measures. Table XV provides the definition of the characteristics.
Figure 5 : 3-layer model for internal and external quality. Adapted from (ISO/IEC, 2001a)
![Page 361: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/361.jpg)
Figure 6 : Quality in use model. Adapted from (ISO/IEC, 2001a)
Theoretically, Internal Quality, External Quality and Quality in Use are linked together with a predictive mode1. This is illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7 : Relationships between the different aspects of quality. Adapted from (ISO/IEC,
2001a)
This prediction relationship states that user quality needs should first be established and specified using the Quality In Use model. From these requirements as well as other sources, External Quality requirements should be established using the External Quality model. Finally, the Internal Quality requirements should be constructed from the External Quality requirements and other sources. Once the requirements are established and software construction is under way, the quality model can be used to predict the overall quality. For example, measurement of Internal Quality can be useful in predicting External Quality. Likewise, measurement of External Quality can be useful in predicting Quality in Use.
![Page 362: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/362.jpg)
The above paragraphs describe the ideal theoretical model that links these three aspects of quality. However, in reality, no model may claim to follow perfectly this prediction mechanism. Although the ISO/IEC 9126 model follows this approach closely, no claims are made as to the real predictive power of the model. While the links between Internal and External Quality seem rather obvious because the models are essentially the same, caution must be exercised. While the name of the characteristics and subcharacteristics are the same, the links between Internal and External Quality must be verified empirically. The same reasoning applies to the links between External Quality and Quality in Use.
The new version of ISO/IEC 9126 is gaining momentum in the industry. Some corporate quality models, for example MITRE's SQAE (Martin & Shaffer, 1996), are beginning a migration from a model based on McCall's and Boehm's research to one based on ISO/IEC 9126 (Côté, Suryn, Martin & Laporte, 2004a; Côté, Suryn, Martin & Laporte, 2004b; Côté, Suryn, Laporte & Martin, 2005). This new version of ISO/IEC 9126 is thus seen as an improvement upon the older quality models.
It is interesting to see how the three aspects of quality defined above can be directly linked to the perspectives of quality that were outlined previously. More specifically:
• ISO/IEC 9126-4, which defines Quality in Use, is directly related to the user and value-based perspectives. The definition of the user perspective of quality states that it is concerned with the appropriateness of a product for a given context of use. Quality in Use is defined as the capability of the software product to enable specified users to achieve specified goals in specified contexts of use. The relationship between the two is clear. Quality in Use and the value based perspective of quality are linked essentially through the Satisfaction characteristic. This characteristic inherently recognises that quality can have a different meaning and/or value for different stakeholders. Satisfaction levels can thus be set according to those levels of perception. This has been demonstrated by the study reported in Siakas and Georgiadou (2005).
• ISO/IEC 9126-3, which defines Internal Quality, and ISO/IEC 9126-2, which defines External Quality, are directly related to both the manufacturing and product perspectives. The definitions of the quality characteristics Functionality and Reliability can be linked with the manufacturing perspective of quality. Reliability, Usability, Efficiency, Maintainability and Portability are all inherent characteristics of the product and a manifestation of the product perspective of quality.
Figure 8 : Relationships between ISO/IEC 9126 and the perspectives of quality
![Page 363: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/363.jpg)
From the review of the different quality models, one might point out that none seem to address the transcendental perspective of quality. One might even ask the following pertinent question: Does ISO/IEC 9126 address the transcendental perspective of quality? Recall that the transcendental perspective of quality relates to quality as something that is recognised but not defined. At this point, the following hypothesis will be made:
As the transcendental perspective of quality cannot be defined, it cannot be explicitly implemented in a software product. However, the transcendental aspect of quality will emerge when a holistic approach to quality engineering is taken.
This model seems to recognise all the perspectives of quality as important contributors to the overall assessment of quality. It takes an incremental approach to software quality that begins with Quality in Use, something that is easy to grasp for non-technical stakeholders, and ends with Internal Quality, something more technically inclined stakeholders will feel more comfortable with. Furthermore, there is a comprehensive set of suggested measures that allow for the assessment of software quality.
ISO/IEC 9126 is thus the only model that fulfills all the stated requirements for a model to be useful as a foundation to Software Quality Engineering. [NEED TO DISCUSS THIS -
Conclusion This paper has defined three requirements that a quality model should meet to serve as a foundation to Software Quality Engineering:
• A quality model should support the 5 different perspectives of quality as defined by Kitchenham and Pfleeger (1996).
• A quality model should be usable from the top to the bottom of the lifecycle as defined by IEEE Std 1061-1998 (IEEE, 1998).
• A quality model should be usable from the bottom to top of the lifecycle as defined by IEEE Std 1061-1998 (IEEE, 1998).
These criteria were applied to four quality models:
• It was found that the models proposed by McCall, Boehm and Dromey focus on the product perspective of quality to the detriment of other perspectives. Furthermore, they are primarily useful in a bottom up approach to quality that is not suitable for Software Quality Engineering.
• ISO/IEC 9126 is the only model that supports all the perspectives of quality (with the exception of the transcendental perspective as noted). Furthermore, its predictive framework clearly supports both the top down and bottom up approaches.
This paper has focused on analysing the semantics of the different models with respect to the stated requirements. In theory, ISO/IEC 9126 seems well suited for Software Quality Engineering. Further research is needed to see if the measures associated with ISO/IEC 9126 make this model usable for Software Quality Engineering in practice.
References
Adey, C. A. & Hill, G. K. (2000). Quality / ISO 9000 as a Marketing Tool, [En ligne]. http://www.smps.org/mrc/articles/0200qualityiso.pdf
Bazzana, G., Anderson, O., & Jokela, T. (1993). ISO 9126 and ISO 9000: Friends or foes? Presented at Software Engineering Standards Symposium.
![Page 364: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/364.jpg)
Biehl, R. E. (2001). Six sigma for Software. IEEE Software, 21(2), 68-70.
Boddie, J. (2000). Do We Ever Really Scale Down?, IEEE Software,17(5), 79-81.
Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, J. R., Lipow, M. L. & MacCleod, G. (1978). Characteristics of Software Quality. New York: American Elsevier.
Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Lipow, M. L. (1976). Quantitative Evaluation of Software Quality. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering, San Fransisco, California, United States, 592-605, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Bourque, P., R. Dupuis, A. Abran, J.W. Moore, L.L. Tripp et S. Wolff, (2000) Fundamental Principles of Software Engineering - A Journey, Journal of Systems and Software,
Côté, M.-A., Suryn, W., Martin, R. A., Laporte, C. Y. (2004a). Evolving a Corporate Software Quality Assessment Exercice: A Migration Path to ISO/IEC 9126, Software Quality Professional, 6(3), 4-17.
Côté, M.-A., Suryn, W., Martin, R. A., Laporte, C. Y. (2004b). The analysis of the industrial applicability of software product quality ISO standards: the context of MITRE's Software Quality Assessment exercise, in Proceedings of the 12th International Software Quality Management & INSPIRE Conference (BSI) 2004, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom.
Côté, M.-A., Suryn, W., Laporte, C. Y., Martin, R. A. (2005). The Evolution Path for Industrial Software Quality Evaluation Methods Applying ISO/IEC 9126:2001 Quality Model: Example of MITRE's SQAE Method, Software Quality Journal, vol. 13, 17-30.
Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Diaz M. & Sligo, J. (1997). How Software Process Improvement Helped Motorola, IEEE Software, 17(5), 75-81.
Dromey, R. G. (1995). A model for software product quality. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21, 146-162.
Dromey, R. G. (1996). Cornering the Chimera. IEEE Software, 13(1), 33-43.
Eickelman, N. (2003). An Insider's View of CMM Level 5, IEEE Software, 20(4), 79-81.
Haley, T. J. (1996). Software Process Improvement at Raytheon, IEEE Software, 13(6), 33-41.
Georgiadou E. (2003 a) Software Process and Product Improvement, A Historical Perspective, International Journal of Cybernetics, Volume 1, No1, Jan 2003 pp172-197
Georgiadou E.(2003b) GEQUAMO– A Generic, Multilayered, Customisable, Software Quality Model, Volume 11, Number 4 , 313-323 November 2003
Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Ecosystems, Addison-Wesley Professional.
IEEE. 1998. Std. 1061-1998 IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology.
![Page 365: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/365.jpg)
ISO/IEC. 1999a. ISO/IEC 14598-1: Software product evaluation-Part 1 : General overview. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO/IEC. 1999b. ISO/IEC 9000:2000 Quality management systems -- Fundamentals and vocabulary . Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO/IEC. 2000. ISO/IEC 15288: System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO/IEC. 2001a. ISO/IEC 9126-1: Software Engineering-Software product quality-Part 1 : Quality model. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO/IEC. 2001b. ISO/IEC DTR 9126-4: Software engineering-Software product quality-Part 4: Quality in use metrics. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO/IEC. 2003a. ISO/IEC TR 9126-2: Software Engineering-Software product quality-Part 2 : External metrics. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO/IEC. 2003b. ISO/IEC TR 9126-3: Software engineering-Software product quality-Part 3: Internal metrics. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Kitchenham, S. L., Pfleeger (1996). Software Quality: The Elusive Target. IEEE Software,13(1), 12-21.
Laitinen, M. (2000). Scaling Down is Hard to Do, IEEE Software, 17(5), 78-80.
Leffingwell, D. & Widrig, D. (1999). Managing Software Requirements, A Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Martin, R. A. & Shaffer, L. (1996). Providing a framework for effective software quality assessment. Bedford, Mass : MITRE Corporation.
McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., & Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality. Griffiths Air Force Base, N.Y. : Rome Air Development Center Air Force Systems Command.
Pfleeger, S. L. (2001). Software Engineering: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Pressman, R. S. (2001). Software Engineering: A practitioner's approach (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-hill.
Siaka K V., Berki E, Georgiadou E, Sadler C (1997): The Complete Alphabet of Quality Software Systems: Conflicts and Compromises, 7th World Congress on Total Quality&Qualex 97, New Delhi, India, 17-19 February Siaka, K.V., Georgiadou, E. PERFUMES: A Scent of Product Quality Characteristics, SQM 2005, March 2005, UK
Suryn, W. (2003). Course notes SYS861. École de Technologie Supérieure, Montréal.
Voas, J. (2003). Assuring Software Quality Assurance. IEEE Software, 20(3), 48-49.
![Page 366: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/366.jpg)
Toyota Plant in Japan
![Page 367: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/367.jpg)
Production mix in the plant
![Page 368: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/368.jpg)
Assembling with
white gloves.
Easy access to tools
Visual alarm that indicates problems.
![Page 369: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/369.jpg)
Training material used to explain the process and teach people.
![Page 370: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/370.jpg)
5S Chairs below table to save
space.
![Page 371: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/371.jpg)
Device to clean foot. Before entering
the production hall, everybody must clean the foot
![Page 372: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/372.jpg)
In the office area, the chairs stays besides and are used only for resting. People work in stand up position (the aim is genba approach). The furniture were elevate. All of them with wheel to facilitate moving..
![Page 373: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/373.jpg)
5S – identification in chairs has the same identification in table, to indicates the right position of the chairs. It could look like excess, but it’s to show the 5S culture. That’s a
meeting room of company direction.
![Page 374: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/374.jpg)
5S – all material identified and in its place. In the furniture, the wheels to facilitate moving.
![Page 375: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/375.jpg)
5S. A training material folder to organize all procedures and OPLs. Most of them are made manually.
![Page 376: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/376.jpg)
5S
![Page 377: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/377.jpg)
Floor identification. Each colour has a meaning, Very clear floor.
![Page 378: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/378.jpg)
Board filled by hand. Checklist (beside) is also, made manually.
![Page 379: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/379.jpg)
Skill matrix
![Page 380: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/380.jpg)
Even here you find 5S.
![Page 381: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/381.jpg)
Interest: They are already making plans for the car of the future. (for only 1 person)
![Page 382: 103191733-NOTES-Software-Quality-Management.pdf](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042714/5530dea155034681738b48a5/html5/thumbnails/382.jpg)
Quality Criteria Relationship
Maintainability and testability vs. efficiency - (Inverse)
Optimized and compact code is not easy to maintain.
Portability vs. efficiency - (inverse)
The use of optimized software or system utilities will lead to decrease in probability.
Flexibility, reusability and interoperability vs. efficiency - (inverse)
The generally required for a flexible system, the use if interface routines and the modularity desirable
for reusability will all decrease efficiency
Flexibility and reusability vs. integrity - (inverse)
The general flexible data structures required for flexible and reusable software increase the security
and protection problem.
Interoperability vs. integrity - (inverse)
Coupled system allows more avenues of access to more and different users.
Reusability vs. reliability - (inverse)
Reusable software is required to be general:
Maintaining accuracy and error tolerance across all cases is difficult.
Maintainability vs. flexibility - (direct)
Maintainable code arises from code that is well structured.
Maintainability vs. reusability - (direct)
Well structured easily maintainable code is easier to reuse in other programs either as a library of
routines or as code placed directly within another program.
Portability vs. reusability - (direct)
Portable code is likely to be free of environment-specific features.
Correctness vs. efficiency - (neutral)
The correctness of code, i.e. its conformance to specification does not influence its efficiency