Assessment of Software Quality

In the context of the rapid development of information technologies, software quality is becoming critical for the successful operation of organizations in various industries. The growing complexity of modern software solutions requires the involvement of highly qualified specialists in software testing and quality assessment, capable of effectively identifying shortcomings and ensuring that the product meets established standards. At the same time, assessing the level of competence of such experts remains a difficult task, which is often based on subjective criteria and methods. The relevance of the study is due to the acute need of the modern IT market for objective tools for assessing the professional level of specialists, especially in the field of software quality assurance. Traditional approaches to qualification assessment, such as interviews, test tasks or resume analysis, often do not provide a complete and objective picture of the expert's competence. This problem becomes especially acute in the conditions of the global labor market, when companies are forced to evaluate specialists remotely, relying only on a limited set of data on their experience and skills. Today, software has become an integral part of many areas of our everyday life - from automation and optimization of production processes to creating comfort for an individual. The object of the study is the process of determining the level of competence of experts in software quality assessment. The subject of the study is a mathematical model for calculating the level of competence of an expert. The practical value of the results of the work is determined by the possibility of using the developed system by HR managers for effective selection of specialists, by heads of QA departments for the formation of balanced testing teams, by certification centers for objective assessment of competence, as well as by the experts themselves for planning their own professional development. Conclusion the developed mathematical model for calculating the level of competence of an expert allows you to reduce the time for assessing the competence of specialists, minimize the influence of subjective factors when making personnel decisions, and optimize the distribution of human resources in software development and testing projects.

This article describes empirical research results regarding the "history effect" in software quality evaluation processes. Most software quality models and evaluation processes models assume that software quality may be deterministically evaluated, especially when it is evaluated by experts. Consequently, software developers focus on the technical characteristics of the software product. A similar assumption is common in most engineering disciplines. However, in regard to other kinds of goods, direct violations of the assumption about objective evaluation were shown to be affected by the consequences of cognitive processes limitations. Ongoing discussion in the area of behavioral economics raises the question: are the experts prone to observation biases? If they are, then software quality models overlook an important aspect of software quality evaluation. This article proposes an experiment that aims to trace the influence of users' knowledge on software quality assessment. Measuring the influence of single variables for the software quality perception process is a complex task. There is no valid quality model for the precise measurement of product quality, and consequently software engineering does not have tools to freely manipulate the quality level for a product. This article proposes a simplified method to manipulate the observed quality level, thereby making it possible to conduct research. The proposed experiment has been conducted among professional software evaluators. The results show the significant negative influence (large effect size) of negative experience of users on final opinion about software quality regardless of its actual level.

For projects that rely on empirical process control and deliver frequently working versions of software, developers and project managers regularly need to examine the status of their software quality. This study illustrates that simple goal-oriented changes or extensions to the existing data of projects' respective defect tracking systems could provide valuable and prompt information to improve their software quality assessment and assurance.

Software quality issues play a dominant role in the development of large scale software systems. High quality software enhances reuse potential and facilitates software maintenance activities. However, at present, software quality assessment is a labor intensive, error prone, time consuming process. Automated quality assessment of software systems is a cost effective alternative to ensure compliance with system quality objectives. This paper discusses how reverse engineering technology can be leveraged to solve the needs of software quality assurance teams.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

The aim of this study is the development of the method of generating and filling the template of ontology for the quality of the concrete software and method of forming the logical conclusion about the sufficiency of information of software requirements specification (SRS) for software quality assessment (by ISO 25010:2011). The first time proposed method of generating and filling the template of ontology for the quality of the concrete software leaves in the relevant ontology only measures, which are available in the SRS for the concrete software. It provides forming the ontology for the quality of the concrete software. The first time developed method of forming the logical conclusion about the sufficiency of the SRS information for software quality assessment provides the conclusion about the sufficiency or insufficiency of the SRS information for software quality assessment by ISO 25010:2011. If the SRS information is insufficient, this method: provides the conclusion for which characteristics and sub-characteristics the information is insufficient; creates the sorted list of missing measures as the recommended priority of their addition in the SRS; evaluates the veracity of software quality assessment based on the available in the SRS measures.

Aims: Software quality assurance is a formal process for evaluating and documenting the quality of the work products during each stage of the software development lifecycle.The practice of applying software metrics to operational factors and to maintain factors is a complex task.Successful software quality assurance is highly dependent on software metrics.It needs linkage the software quality model and software metrics through quality factors in order to offer measure method for software quality assurance.The contributions of this paper build an appropriate method of Software quality metrics application in quality life cycle with software quality assurance.Design: The purpose approach defines some software metrics in the factors and discussed several software quality assurance model and some quality factors measure method.Methodology: This paper solves customer value evaluation problem are: Build a framework of combination of software quality criteria.Describes software metrics.Build Software quality metrics application in quality life cycle with software quality assurance.Results: From the appropriate method of Software quality metrics application in quality life cycle with software quality assurance, each activity in the software life cycle, there is one or more QA quality measure metrics focus on ensuring the quality of the process and the resulting product.Future research is need to extend and improve the methodology to extend metrics that have been validated on one project, using our criteria, valid measures of quality on future software project.

Quality model is regarded as a well-accepted approach for assessing, managing and improving software product quality. There are three categories of quality models for software products, i.e., definition model, assessment model, and prediction model. Quality assessment model (QAM) is a metric-based approach to assess the software quality. It is typically regarded as of high importance for its clear method on how to assess a system. However, the current state-of-the-art in QAM research is under limited investigation. To address this gap, the paper provides an organized and synthesized summary of the current QAMs. In detail, we conduct a systematic mapping study (SMS) for structuring the relevant articles. We obtain a total of 716 papers from the five databases, and 31 papers are selected as relevant studies at last. In summary, our work focuses on QAMs from the following aspects: software metrics, quality factors, aggregation methods, evaluation methods and tool support. According to the analysis results, our work discovers five needs that researchers in this area should continue to address: (1) new method and criteria to tailor a quality framework (i.e., structure of software metrics and quality factors) according to different specifics, (2) systematic investigations on the effectiveness, strength and weakness of different aggregation methods to guide the method selection in different context, (3) more investigations on evaluating QAMs in the context of industrial cases, (4) further investigations or real-world case studies on the QAMs related tools, and (5) building a public and diverse software benchmark which can be adopted in different application context.

Quality of software is the key to successful software development and physics results transparency. An original method to assess the quality of scientific software systems objectively has been developed. A set of established software metrics is combined with statistical analysis methods, such as trend analysis and inequality and diversity measures, to quantify various characteristics of the code, such as maintainability. This methodology, previously applied to Geant4, has now been employed to assess the quality of ROOT, a software system for big data processing, statistical analysis, visualisation and storage frequently used in particle and nuclear physics experiments. Preliminary results of the analysis of ROOT software quality are presented.

The research topic focuses on the characterization of software quality considering the main software elements such as people, process and product. Many attributes (size, language, testing techniques etc.) probably could have an effect on the quality of software. In this thesis we aim to understand the impact of attributes of three P's (people, product, process) on the quality of software by empirical means. Software quality can be interpreted in many ways, such as customer satisfaction, stability and defects etc. In this thesis we adopt ‘defect density' as a quality measure. Therefore the research focus on the empirical evidences of the impact of attributes of the three P's on the software defect density. For this reason empirical research methods (systematic literature reviews, case studies, and interviews) are utilized to collect empirical evidence. Each of this research method helps to extract the empirical evidences of the object under study and for data analysis statistical methods are used. Considering the product attributes, we have studied the size, language, development mode, age, complexity, module structure, module dependency, and module quality and their impact on project quality. Considering the process attributes, we have studied the process maturity and structure, and their impact on the project quality. Considering the people attributes, we have studied the experience and capability, and their impact on the project quality. Moreover, in the process category, we have studied the impact of one testing approach called ‘exploratory testing' and its impact on the quality of software. Exploratory testing is a widely used software-testing practice and means simultaneous learning, test design, and test execution. We have analyzed the exploratory testing weaknesses, and proposed a hybrid testing approach in an attempt to improve the quality. Concerning the product attributes, we found that there exist a significant difference of quality between open and close source projects, java and C projects, and large and small projects. Very small and defect free modules have impact on the software quality. Different complexity metrics have different impact on the software quality considering the size. Product complexity as defined in Table 53 has partial impact on the software quality. However software age and module dependencies are not factor to characterize the software quality. Concerning the people attributes, we found that platform experience, application experience and language and tool experience have significant impact on the software quality. Regarding the capability we found that programmer capability has partial impact on the software quality where as analyst capability has no impact on the software quality. Concerning process attributes we found that there is no difference of quality between the project developed under CMMI and those that are not developed under CMMI. Regarding the CMMI levels there is difference of software quality particularly between CMMI level 1 and CMMI level 3. Comparing different process types we found that hybrid projects are of better quality than waterfall projects. Process maturity defined by (SEI-CMM) has partial impact on the software quality. Concerning exploratory testing, we found that exploratory testing weaknesses induce the testing technical debt therefore a process is defined in conjunction with the scripted testing in an attempt to reduce the associated technical debt of exploratory testing. The findings are useful for both researchers and practitioners to evaluate their projects

The objectives of this chapter are threefold: 1. to motivate the necessity of establishing a software quality assessment program based on fundamental software engineering concepts, 2. to present the OPA Framework with Software Quality Indicators (SQIs) as a sound comprehensive approach to quality measurement, and 3. to relate process and product measures to the goals of prediction and assessment. KeywordsSoftware EngineeringSocial IndicatorSoftware QualityMeasurement GoalSoftware Engineering ProcessThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Developing a good software system is a very complex task. In order to produce a good software product, several measures for software quality attributes need to be taken into account. System complexity measurement plays a vital role in controlling and managing software quality because it generally affects the software quality attributes like software reliability, software testability and software maintainability. Thus, software quality assurance (SQA) needs to be addressed keeping in view the new strategies, tool, methodologies and techniques applicable to software development life cycle.This paper is primarily aimed at revisiting and examining peculiar aspects of software development process that affect software quality management process. These aspects of software development process include software reliability measurement, ISO approach applicable to software quality and some aspects related to software testing improvement. Software testing and evaluation methods/tools/techniques do not guarantee effective testing and ensure high software quality. The way to improve the effectiveness of testing is to improve the attitude of software developers towards testing.In this paper, all these factors affecting software quality management have been discussed as well as all the possible improvements have been suggested. The results of this paper may be quite helpful to the researchers in quantifying the specific measuring tools for these software quality attributes.

Software quality assessment using a multi-strategy classifier

Assessing software quality and understanding how events in its evolution have lead to anomalies are two important steps toward reducing costs in software maintenance. Unfortunately, evaluation of large quantities of code over several versions is a task too time-consuming, if not overwhelming, to be applicable in general. To address this problem, we designed a visualization framework as a semi-automatic approach to quickly investigate programs composed of thousands of classes, over dozens of versions. Programs and their associated quality characteristics for each version are graphically represented and displayed independently. Real-time navigation and animation between these representations recreate visual coherences often associated with coherences intrinsic to subsequent software versions. Exploiting such coherences can reduce cognitive gaps between the different views of software, and allows human experts to use their visual capacity and intuition to efficiently investigate and understand various quality aspects of software evolution. To illustrate the interest of our framework, we report our results on two case studies.

work of W. Edwards Deming has convinced industry that must first measure quality and then emphasise process to improve quality. In response to Deming's arguments and in light of perception that software industry is unable to produce quality products on schedule, and within budget, more software development organisations are now emphasising process measurement, monitoring, and assessment. This paper describes what is meant by software process and discusses an approach for its measurement and improvement. INTRODUCTION Unreliable software makes big news, from emergency services disasters to social security payment blunders. Improved software quality is essential to ensure reliable products and services, and gain customer satisfaction. While software development has existed for more than four decades, we failed so far to make as an industry and as an engineering discipline rather than craft. Developing reliable and usable software that is delivered on and within budget still represents difficult endeavour for many organisations. As role of software becomes increasingly critical for businesses as well as for human lives, problems caused by software products that are late, over budget, or that do not work, become magnified. If lives are lost or people inconvenienced due to incapable computer software, news media is there to make big stories. Organisations are realising that their fundamental problems is immaturity of their software process. Robert Lai (1993) proposes that process improvement is second maturity wave of software industry. He states that the first wave of software was developed using waterfall model in 1970's. Today we are Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 216 Software Management in midst of second wave maturity movement as we attempt to formally define development process and best ways to continuously improve it (Lai 1993). Taking lead in this area has been Watts Humphrey (Humphrey 1989, 1990, 1991), and Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University. SEI started in 1986 to develop process maturity framework to help organisations appraise maturity of their software process, and to provide guidance for organisations to improve their software process capability. A brief description of framework was released in September 1987, including maturity questionnaire. SEI evolved model and questionnaire into 5 -Level Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in 1991. In February 1993, released CMM version 1.1 (Paulk et al 1993). This paper discusses software process and describes capability maturity model (CMM). It also shows how CMM can be used as basis to measure maturity of software process of an organisation and plan its improvement. SOFTWARE QUALITY AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT In his book Quality is Free Phil Crosby states that: Quality is free. It is not gift, is free. What cost money are unqualify of things all actions that involve not doing jobs right first time (Crosby 1980). If such statement is true for many disciplines, is particularly true for evidence is abundant in number of software products which exceeded their budget, were produced late, failed to satisfy user requirements, and are full of bugs. demand for improved software quality is increasing to ensure reliable products and services. benefits of improved quality comes in form of reduction in failure costs. For software projects failure costs include (DTI 1992): • costs of correcting defects, both before and after delivery • overruns against and budget • unnecessary high maintenance costs • indirect costs which users incur due to poor quality software link between process maturity and software quality is expressed in premise that The quality of software system is governed by quality of process used to develop and maintain it. One stumbling block to improving software quality seems to be that not enough attention is paid to overall development process itself. While software professionals typically devote their to developing, testing or documenting software products, no one has prime responsibility for improving software process. Experience has shown that if Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 Managing Systems 217 no one is working on software process, orderly improvement is unlikely. process certainly won't improve itself, rather, most likely, will deteriorate over time. Continuous improvement can occur only if process infrastructure is in place. Watts Humphrey argues in an early article published in Datamation, April 1989 that: Without work on process, there will be little or no progress in improving software. THE SOFTWARE PROCESS Adopting process view of software development represents revolutionary change in perspective. A process orientation to software development involves elements of structure, focus, measurement, ownership, skills, and supporting technology. In this section we investigate what is meant by software process. What Is Software Process According to Webster's dictionary, process is a system of operations in producing something .. series of actions, changes, or functions that achieve an end result. Chambers Concise Dictionary defines process as a series of actions or events .. sequence of operations or changes undergone. IEEE defines process as a sequence of steps performed for given purpose. In general business context, process is defined as a structured, measured set of activities designed to produce specified output for particular customer or market (Davenport 1993). These definitions put strong emphasis on HOW work is done, in contrast to product focus's emphasis on WHAT. Accordingly, process can be considered as a specific ordering of work activities across and place, with beginning, an end, and clearly identified inputs and outputs: structure for action. In this paper we will adopt following definitions quoted in (Humphrey 1990, Paulk et al 1993) are intended to encompass software throughout its life, which covers new development, enhancement, and repair. software process is The set of activities, methods, and practices used in production and evolution of software. software engineering process is The total set of software engineering activities needed to transform user's requirements into software. Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 218 Software Management People and Software Process Software development is still people-intensive activity. Talented people are most important element in any software organisation. Even if you get best people available, if they do not follow common process, if everyone wrote in different programming languages, used different conventions, or didn't co-ordinate their design and code changes with their peers, results will be chaos. Successful software organisations have learned that even best professionals need structured and disciplined environment in which to do cooperative work. Software organisations that do not establish such disciplines condemn their people to endless hours of repetitively solving technically trivial problems. obvious fact is that attracting best people is vital, but is also essential to support them with an effectively managed software process. Technology and Software Process Another myth is widespread belief that some technologically advanced tool or method will provide magic answer to software crisis. This is not only wrong, but is dangerous. Organisations which jumped on bandwagon of CASE tools, and ended up in failure and wasted and effort have learned their lesson hard way. Just ask yourself before introducing technology: What do I want to automate? In absence of defined, practised, and managed process, introducing automation can lead to increased chaos. There are several factors which limit effective use of software technology: an illdefined process, inconsistent process implementation, and poor process management. Software technology cannot be fully effective until these problems have been properly addressed. Need for Defined Process If no effort is made to define and enhance software development process across whole organisation, each software development project latches on to its own tools, methods, and practices with little guidance available on how to use them. This ad hoc approach will not be sufficient to tackle task of developing complex software systems. goal of software process management is to enable organisations to produce software that meets cost, schedules, and quality objectives. principles are same that underpins statistical process control-principles that have been successfully used in controlling scientific experiments and in high -volume manufacturing operations. Statistical concepts have been found to be just as applicable to software development as they are to production of manufactured goods such as motor cars. Applying such concepts will only be possible if there is defined and managed process. Software Process Models Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517

The moderator has offered seven propositions relative to the meaning and conduct of effective software quality assurance. Although I find it difficult to give unqualified acceptance or rejection to any of these propositions, in response to the rules of the session I accept propositions 1, 2, 3 and 5 and reject 4, 6 and 7.After a number of years experience in the software quality arena, both in government and industry, I have come to the conclusion that the most important aspect of software quality assurance is to make a positive contribution to the objective of the software project. I define this objective as the development of a quality software product delivered on time and within budget. I further define a quality software product as one which meets customer requirements and provides usable service. In short my perspective of software quality assurance is one of contribution in contrast to the “righteousness of the cause.”To this end I suggest an “engineering analysis approach” to software quality. Such an approach can take the form of a typical engineering problem solving model with steps of problem formulation, problem analysis, search, decision, specification and implementation. Using such an approach the advocates for quality software can use empirical evidence to establish the contributions software quality assurance efforts make toward the software project objective.