The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.03 - May-June (2012 vol.29)
pp: 77-85
Ayca Tarhan , Hacettepe University
Onur Demirors , Middle East Technical University Informatics Institute
Quantitative management requires an understanding of the nature of variation and its use to improve process performance. Popular process reference models like CMMI embrace quantitative management at high maturity levels. However, even for high maturity levels, the number of available studies on the benefits of applying quantitative techniques is limited. The authors describe a systematic approach with a well-defined, detailed guideline intended for use by software organizations in assessing their processes and applying quantitative techniques to understand their potential for improvement. More specifically, Assessment Approach for Quantitative Process Management (A2QPM) evaluates the suitability of a software process and its measures for quantitative analysis. The authors discuss the application of this approach in 12 processes at six different organizations. The results show that, as systematic approaches and supporting tools become available, software organizations can readily apply quantitative techniques to improve their processes.
process measurement, process infrastructure, software process
Ayca Tarhan, Onur Demirors, "Apply Quantitative Management Now", IEEE Software, vol.29, no. 3, pp. 77-85, May-June 2012, doi:10.1109/MS.2011.91
1. D.J. Wheeler, Advanced Topics in Statistical Process Control, SPC Press, 1995.
2. CMU/SEI-CMMI Product Team, CMMI for Development V1.3, tech. report CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, Carnegie Mellon Univ. Software Eng. Inst., 2010.
3. ISO/IEC 15504: Information Technology − Process Assessment, parts 1–7, ISO/IEC, 2003– 2008.
4. B. Pitterman, “Telcordia Technologies: The Journey to High Maturity,” IEEE Software, vol. 17, no. 4, 2000, pp. 89–96.
5. F. McGarry and B. Decker, “Attaining Level 5 in CMM Process Maturity,” IEEE Software, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 87–96.
6. L. Jacob and S.K. Pillai, “Statistical Process Control to Improve Coding and Code Review,” IEEE Software, vol. 20, no. 3, 2003, pp. 50–55.
7. M. Agrawal and K. Chari, “Software Effort, Quality, and Cycle Time: A Study of CMM Level 5 Projects,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 33, no. 3, 2007, pp. 145–156.
8. A. Takara, A.X. Bettin, and C.M.T. Toledo, “Problems and Pitfalls in a CMMI Level 3 to Level 4 Migration Process,” Proc. 6th Int'l Conf. Quality of Information and Communications Tech., IEEE CS, 2007, pp. 91–99.
9. R.W. Stoddard II et al., CMMI High Maturity Measurement and Analysis Workshop Report, tech. note, CMU/SEI-2008-TN-027, Mar. 2008.
10. M.T. Baldassarre et al., “Systematic Review of Statistical Process Control: An Experience Report,” Proc. 11th Int'l Conf. Evaluation and Assessment in Software Eng. (EASE 07), British Computer Soc., 2007, pp. 1–9.
11. W.A. Florac and A.D. Carleton, Measuring the Software Process: Statistical Process Control for Software Process Improvement, Pearson Education, 1999.
12. C.B. Tayntor, Six Sigma Software Development, 2nd ed., Auerbach Publications, 2007.
13. M.G. Aboelmaged, “Six Sigma Quality: A Structured Review and Implications for Future Research,” Int'l J. Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 27, no. 3, 2010, pp. 268–317.
14. A. Tarhan and O. Demirors, “Investigating the Effect of Variations in Test Development Process: A Case from a Safety-Critical System,” Software Quality J., vol. 19, no. 4, 2011, pp. 615–642.
21 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool