软件质量管理工具的形成性评价

L. Guzmán, Anna Maria Vollmer, M. Ciolkowski, M. Gillmann
{"title":"软件质量管理工具的形成性评价","authors":"L. Guzmán, Anna Maria Vollmer, M. Ciolkowski, M. Gillmann","doi":"10.1109/ESEM.2017.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context/Background: To achieve high software quality, particularly in the context of agile software development, organizations need tools to continuously analyze software quality. Several quality management (QM) tools have been developed in recent years. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the quality of QM tools, standardized definitions of such quality, and reliable instruments for measuring it. This, in turn, impedes proper selection and improvement of QM tools. Goals: We aimed at operationalizing the quality of a research QM tool, namely the ProDebt prototype, and evaluating its quality. The goal of the ProDebt prototype is to provide practitioners with support for managing software quality and technical debt. Method: We performed interviews, workshops, and a mapping study to operationalize the quality of the ProDebt prototype and to identify reliable instruments to measure it. We designed a mixed-method study aimed at formative evaluation, i.e., at assessing the quality of the ProDebt prototype and providing guidance for its further development. Eleven practitioners from two German companies evaluated the ProDebt prototype. Results: The participants assessed the information provided by the ProDebt prototype as understandable and relevant. They considered the ProDebt prototype's functionalities as easy to use but of limited usability. They identified improvement needs, e.g., that the analysis results should be linked to other information sources. Conclusions: The evaluation design was of practical value for evaluating the ProDebt prototype considering the limited resources such as the practitioners' time. The evaluation results provided the developers of the ProDebt prototype with guidance for its further development. We conclude that it can be used and tailored for replication or evaluation of other QM tools.","PeriodicalId":213866,"journal":{"name":"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Formative Evaluation of a Tool for Managing Software Quality\",\"authors\":\"L. Guzmán, Anna Maria Vollmer, M. Ciolkowski, M. Gillmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ESEM.2017.43\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context/Background: To achieve high software quality, particularly in the context of agile software development, organizations need tools to continuously analyze software quality. Several quality management (QM) tools have been developed in recent years. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the quality of QM tools, standardized definitions of such quality, and reliable instruments for measuring it. This, in turn, impedes proper selection and improvement of QM tools. Goals: We aimed at operationalizing the quality of a research QM tool, namely the ProDebt prototype, and evaluating its quality. The goal of the ProDebt prototype is to provide practitioners with support for managing software quality and technical debt. Method: We performed interviews, workshops, and a mapping study to operationalize the quality of the ProDebt prototype and to identify reliable instruments to measure it. We designed a mixed-method study aimed at formative evaluation, i.e., at assessing the quality of the ProDebt prototype and providing guidance for its further development. Eleven practitioners from two German companies evaluated the ProDebt prototype. Results: The participants assessed the information provided by the ProDebt prototype as understandable and relevant. They considered the ProDebt prototype's functionalities as easy to use but of limited usability. They identified improvement needs, e.g., that the analysis results should be linked to other information sources. Conclusions: The evaluation design was of practical value for evaluating the ProDebt prototype considering the limited resources such as the practitioners' time. The evaluation results provided the developers of the ProDebt prototype with guidance for its further development. We conclude that it can be used and tailored for replication or evaluation of other QM tools.\",\"PeriodicalId\":213866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.43\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

背景/背景:为了实现高软件质量,特别是在敏捷软件开发的背景下,组织需要工具来持续分析软件质量。近年来开发了几种质量管理(QM)工具。然而,缺乏关于质量管理工具质量的证据,这种质量的标准化定义,以及可靠的测量工具。这反过来又阻碍了质量管理工具的正确选择和改进。目标:我们的目标是实现一个研究质量管理工具的质量,即ProDebt原型,并评估其质量。ProDebt原型的目标是为从业者提供管理软件质量和技术债务的支持。方法:我们进行了访谈、研讨会和绘图研究,以操作ProDebt原型的质量,并确定可靠的仪器来测量它。我们设计了一个混合方法研究,旨在形成性评估,即评估ProDebt原型的质量,并为其进一步开发提供指导。来自两家德国公司的11名实践者评估了ProDebt原型。结果:参与者评估ProDebt原型提供的信息是可理解的和相关的。他们认为ProDebt原型的功能很容易使用,但可用性有限。他们确定了改进需求,例如,分析结果应与其他信息源联系起来。结论:考虑到从业者时间等资源的有限性,该评价设计对ProDebt原型的评价具有实用价值。评估结果为ProDebt原型的开发人员提供了进一步开发的指导。我们得出结论,它可以用于复制或评估其他质量管理工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Formative Evaluation of a Tool for Managing Software Quality
Context/Background: To achieve high software quality, particularly in the context of agile software development, organizations need tools to continuously analyze software quality. Several quality management (QM) tools have been developed in recent years. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the quality of QM tools, standardized definitions of such quality, and reliable instruments for measuring it. This, in turn, impedes proper selection and improvement of QM tools. Goals: We aimed at operationalizing the quality of a research QM tool, namely the ProDebt prototype, and evaluating its quality. The goal of the ProDebt prototype is to provide practitioners with support for managing software quality and technical debt. Method: We performed interviews, workshops, and a mapping study to operationalize the quality of the ProDebt prototype and to identify reliable instruments to measure it. We designed a mixed-method study aimed at formative evaluation, i.e., at assessing the quality of the ProDebt prototype and providing guidance for its further development. Eleven practitioners from two German companies evaluated the ProDebt prototype. Results: The participants assessed the information provided by the ProDebt prototype as understandable and relevant. They considered the ProDebt prototype's functionalities as easy to use but of limited usability. They identified improvement needs, e.g., that the analysis results should be linked to other information sources. Conclusions: The evaluation design was of practical value for evaluating the ProDebt prototype considering the limited resources such as the practitioners' time. The evaluation results provided the developers of the ProDebt prototype with guidance for its further development. We conclude that it can be used and tailored for replication or evaluation of other QM tools.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信