SOFTWARE EFFORT, QUALITY AND CYCLE TIME
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
seminar class
Active In SP
**

Posts: 5,361
Joined: Feb 2011
#1
22-02-2011, 12:57 PM


presented by:
MEERA A.R


.pdf   software engineering.pdf (Size: 621.42 KB / Downloads: 81)
SOFTWARE EFFORT, QUALITY AND CYCLE TIME
Abstract

The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) has become a popular methodology forimproving software development processes with the goal of developing high-quality softwarewithin budget and planned cycle time. The CMM for software provides softwareorganizations with guidance on how to gain control of their processes for developing andmaintaining software and how to evolve toward a culture of software engineering andmanagement excellence. The CMM was designed to guide software organizations in selectingprocess improvement strategies by determining current process maturity and identifying theissues most critical to software quality and process improvement.Continuous process improvement is based on small, evolutionary steps. The CMMprovides a framework for organizing these evolutionary steps into five maturity levels that laysuccessive foundations for continuous process improvement. These maturity levels define anordinal scale for measuring the maturity of an organization's software process and forevaluating its software process capability, and also help an organization prioritize itsimprovement efforts. A maturity level is a well-defined evolutionary plateau towardachieving a mature software process. Each level provides a layer in the foundation forcontinuous process improvement. Each level comprises a set of process goals that, whensatisfied, stabilize an important component of the software process. Achieving each level ofthe maturity framework establishes a different component in the software process, resulting inan increase in the process capability of the organization.Prior research has identified a host of factors as determinants of software developmenteffort, quality, and cycle time. The focus is given exclusively on CMM level 5 project and implimentations frommultiple organizations to analyze the impacts of highly mature processes on effort, quality,and cycle time. It can be found that high levels of process maturity reduce the effects of mostfactors that were previously believed to impact software development effort, quality, andcycle time. The only factor found to be significant in determining effort, cycle time, and qualitywas software size. The biggest rewards from high levels of process maturity come from thereduction in variance of software development outcomes that were caused by factors otherthan software size.
Key words : Cost estimation, time estimation, software quality, productivity
1. INTRODUCTION
Developing software to meet functional needs with acceptable levels of quality,within budget, and on schedule, is a goal pursued by every software developmentorganization. Many organizations are adopting the best practices in softwaredevelopment, such as those based on Capability Maturity Model (CMM), ISO 9001, orSix Sigma. CMM has been one of the most popular efforts in enhancing softwarequality and reducing development costs. Due to various technological innovationssuch as the use of object-oriented languages, middleware, and newer tools and due toincreased adoption of best practices in software development, that is, those based onCMM, ISO 9001, or Six Sigma; there is a need to reexamine relationships betweensoftware project and implimentation development outcomes.There are conflicting influences on software development effort, quality, andcycle time: Cycle time may be compressed at the cost of quality, experiencedprofessionals may improve quality but at increased costs, quality may be achieved atthe cost of increased testing effort, larger team size may reduce development timewhile raising total costs, process maturity may improve quality but at high cost, andso forth. One of the most important consequences of improved processes is superiorconformance quality.
The reduction in variability is likely to be most pronounced indevelopment organizations at CMM level 5, which is the highest level of processmaturity as per the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) located at Carnegie MellonUniversity.Valuable insights can be gained by focusing exclusively on CMM level 5software development project and implimentations. It would be possible to determine the factors that really matter in determining project and implimentation development outcomes, as well as the benefitsthat are accumulated, when software development processes are at the highest levelsof maturity. Furthermore, benchmarks based on CMM level 5 project and implimentations could be usefulgoals that many non-CMM level 5 software development organizations could strive toachieve for their own project and implimentations.In this study, the key project and implimentation factors such as software size are identified firstthat determine software project and implimentation development outcomes for CMM level 5 project and implimentations. Thestudy also provides benchmarks for effort, quality, and cycle time based on CMMlevel 5 project and implimentation data. The results suggest that estimation models based on CMM level 5data are portable across multiple CMM level 5 organizations. The results are based ondata collected from 37 project and implimentations of four CMM level 5 organizations. The applicationdomains of sample project and implimentations primarily pertain to the general category of managementinformation system (MIS)/business applications.Prior research has identified a host of factors as determinants of softwaredevelopment effort, quality, and cycle time.
The focus is given exclusively on CMMlevel 5 project and implimentations from multiple organizations to analyze the impacts of highly matureprocesses on effort, quality, and cycle time. It can be found that high levels of processmaturity reduce the effects of most factors that were previously believed to impactsoftware development effort, quality, and cycle time. The only factor found to besignificant in determining effort, cycle time, and quality was software size. The biggestrewards from high levels of process maturity come from the reduction in variance ofsoftware development outcomes that were caused by factors other than software size.
2. CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (CMM)
In November 1986, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), with assistancefrom the Mitre Corporation, began developing a process maturity framework thatwould help organizations improve their software process. In September 1987, the SEIreleased a brief description of the process maturity framework and a maturityquestionnaire. The SEI intended the maturity questionnaire to provide a simple toolfor identifying areas where an organization's software process needed improvement.After four years of experience with the software process maturity framework and thepreliminary version of the maturity questionnaire, the SEI evolved the softwareprocess maturity framework into the Capability Maturity Model for Software (CMM).The CMM is based on knowledge acquired from software process assessments andextensive feedback from both industry and government. By elaborating the maturityframework, a model has emerged that provides organizations with more effectiveguidance for establishing process improvement programs.
The initial release of theCMM, Version 1.0, was reviewed and used by the software community during 1991and 1992.According to Webster's dictionary, a process is "a system of operations inproducing something ... a series of actions, changes, or functions that achieve an endor result." The IEEE defines a process as "a sequence of steps performed for a givenpurpose" [IEEE-STD-610]. A software process can be defined as a set of activities,methods, practices, and transformations that people use to develop and maintainsoftware and the associated products (e.g., project and implimentation plans, design documents, code, testcases, and user manuals). As an organization matures, the software process becomesbetter defined and more consistently implemented throughout the organization. Software process capability describes the range of expected results that can beachieved by following a software process. The software process capability of anorganization provides one means of predicting the most likely outcomes to beexpected from the next software project and implimentation the organization undertakes.
Software processperformance represents the actual results achieved by following a software process.Thus, software process performance focuses on the results achieved, while softwareprocess capability focuses on results expected. Based on the attributes of a specificproject and implimentation and the context within which it is conducted, the actual performance of theproject and implimentation may not reflect the full process capability of the organization; i.e., the capabilityof the project and implimentation is constrained by its environment. For instance, radical changes in theapplication or technology undertaken may place a project and implimentation's staff on a learning curvethat causes their project and implimentation's capability, and performance, to fall short of theorganization's full process capability.
Software process maturity is the extent to which a specific process is explicitlydefined, managed, measured, controlled, and effective. Maturity implies a potentialfor growth in capability and indicates both the richness of an organization's softwareprocess and the consistency with which it is applied in project and implimentations throughout theorganization.
The software process is well-understood throughout a matureorganization, usually through documentation and training, and the process iscontinually being monitored and improved by its users. The capability of a maturesoftware process is known. Software process maturity implies that the productivityand quality resulting from an organization’s software process can be improved overtime through consistent gains in the discipline achieved by using its software process.As a software organization gains in software process maturity, it institutionalizes itssoftware process via policies, standards, and organizational structures.Institutionalization entails building an infrastructure and a corporate culture thatsupports the methods, practices, and procedures of the business so that they endureafter those who originally defined them have gone.The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) has become a popular methodology forimproving software development processes with the goal of developing high-qualitysoftware within budget and planned cycle time. The CMM was designed to guidesoftware organizations in selecting process improvement strategies by determiningcurrent process maturity and identifying the issues most critical to software qualityand process improvement.
The CMM provides a framework for organizing theevolutionary steps into five maturity levels that lay successive foundations forcontinuous process improvement.A maturity level is a well-defined evolutionary plateau toward achieving amature software process. Each level provides a layer in the foundation for continuousprocess improvement and comprises a set of process goals that, when satisfied,stabilize an important component of the software process. These maturity levels definean ordinal scale for measuring the maturity of an organization's software process andfor evaluating its software process capability, and also help an organization prioritizeits improvement efforts. Achieving each level of the maturity framework establishes adifferent component in the software process, resulting in an increase in the processcapability of the organization.
Organizing the CMM into the five levels shown in fig.1 prioritizesimprovement actions for increasing software process maturity. The labeled arrows inthe figure indicate the type of process capability being institutionalized by theorganization at each step of the maturity framework. The following characterizationsof the five maturity levels highlight the primary process changes made at each level:
Reply
PanteraDric
Active In SP
**

Posts: 3
Joined: Mar 2011
#2
16-03-2011, 02:15 AM

По моему мнению Вы не правы. Могу отстоять свою позицию. Пишите мне в PM, обсудим.... Спасибо за поддержку.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[IMG]2ip.ru/bar/ip13.gif[/IMG]
Ваш IP... Орерационная система... и Браузер
Reply

Important Note..!

If you are not satisfied with above reply ,..Please

ASK HERE

So that we will collect data for you and will made reply to the request....OR try below "QUICK REPLY" box to add a reply to this page

Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.


Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  microwind software free download jaseelati 0 287 23-02-2015, 12:47 PM
Last Post: jaseelati
  software reuse seminar ppt jaseelati 0 306 30-12-2014, 04:59 PM
Last Post: jaseelati
  Pattern Finding and Pattern Discovery in Time Series PPT seminar projects maker 0 330 25-09-2013, 04:36 PM
Last Post: seminar projects maker
  Answering General Time-Sensitive Queries pdf seminar projects maker 0 382 14-09-2013, 12:53 PM
Last Post: seminar projects maker
  Software Agents pdf seminar projects maker 0 394 13-09-2013, 04:55 PM
Last Post: seminar projects maker
  Seminar Report On SOFTWARE REUSE pdf seminar projects maker 0 587 12-09-2013, 04:18 PM
Last Post: seminar projects maker
  STANSYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS study tips 0 305 29-08-2013, 01:00 PM
Last Post: study tips
  A Beginner’s Guide To Software Defined Radios PPT study tips 0 296 28-08-2013, 04:55 PM
Last Post: study tips
  Real-time Sign Language Recognition based on Neural Network Architecture study tips 0 526 24-08-2013, 04:35 PM
Last Post: study tips
  FUNDAMENTALS OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT pdf study tips 0 426 22-08-2013, 03:55 PM
Last Post: study tips