to help in the selection of tools that support the software quality management process.

Authors Avatar
The objective of this article is to

propose a set of metrics to support

the selection of tools for software

quality management. The feature

analysis case study evaluation

method was used as a framework,

selected by applying the DESMET

method, specially developed to

evaluate software engineering

methods and tools. As a result of

this research, a set of 16 features

with 59 metrics has been formulated

to help in the selection of

tools that support the software

quality management process.

The features proposed were

applied to nine software tools

selected from those available in

the market. The result was a wellfounded

decision for selecting a

tool that was best suited for the

specific needs of the organization.

Key words: quality features, quality

management, software engineering

tools, software process quality,

software product quality, strategic

planning

INTRODUCTION

For software products, quality must be built in from the beginning;

it is not something that can be added later. To obtain a

quality software product, the software development process

must also reach some quality level.

Some international evaluation norms and models for software

quality are centered in product quality, while others are centered

in process quality. In the first group, ISO/IEC 9126 (JTC 1/SC 7

991) and the Dromey (1995) model can be included. In the second

group, ISO 9000 (Vidal, Wan, and Han 1998), the Capability

Maturity Model for Software (CMM) (Paulk et al. 1993), ISO/IEC

5540 (JTC 1/ SC 7 1997), and the IDEAL model (Gembra and

Myers 1997) can be considered. There are tools to allow software

quality management from different points of view, and they can

help in some of the tasks and activities of the software development

process. Some of these tools are based on international

norms and models of the software quality evaluation.

Therefore, the objective of this article is to propose a set of

features that support the selection of software quality management

tools. The final result is a quality assurance plan that

supports the selection process of one of these tools.

By using the proposed features, Venezuelan organizations

now have an objective guideline to select a tool for supporting

software quality management. In this way, they will be able to

map out a quality assurance plan and make the necessary tasks

tool-aided. Therefore, high-quality software could be developed

Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

Selecting Tools

for Software

Quality

Management

LUIS E. MENDOZA, MARÍA A. PÉREZ,

TERESITA ROJAS, ANNA GRIMÁN

LISI, Dpto. de Procesos y Sistemas,

Universidad Simón Bolívar

LUISA A. DE LUCA

Dpto. de Gerencia de Sistemas de Información,

Banco Central de Venezuela

8 SQP VOL. 4, NO. 4/(c) 2002, ASQ

Selecting Tools for Software Quality Management

more effectively in order to deliver competitive products

to the market.

A subset of these features evaluates technical

issues of the tools, while others are related to organization.

The weight assigned to each feature will

depend on its importance to the organization.

The application of these features does not require

previous experience, but it does require a well-defined

quality management process. The time required to

apply these features will depend on knowledge related

to the tool directly. It does not, however, imply the

necessity of acquiring it.

This article provides a description of quality management

and software quality tools. It then explains the

method used in this research, followed by a description

of evaluated tools, an explanation of features proposal

and scoring, and, finally, the analysis of results, conclusions,

and recommendations are discussed.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT

AND SOFTWARE QUALITY

MANAGEMENT TOOLS

Achieving a high level of product or service quality is

the objective of most organizations. In this respect,

software is the same as any manufactured product. The

definition of software quality, however, includes several

aspects that are unique to software. The most relevant

is that quality must be built in; it is not something that

can be added later (Humphrey 1997). To obtain a quality

software product, the software development process

must also be of quality (JTC 1/SC 7 1991).

Quality management is not just concerned with

ensuring that software is developed without faults and

conforms to its specifications (Sommerville 1996). A

critical part of quality planning is selecting critical

attributes and planning how these can be achieved.

Software quality managers are responsible for three

kinds of activities (Sommerville 1996):

. Quality assurance: They must establish organizational

procedures and standards that lead

to high-quality software.

2. Quality planning: They must select appropriate

procedures and standards and tailor them

for a specific software project.

3. Quality control: They must ensure that procedures

and standards are followed by the

software development team.

There are tools to support software quality management

from different points of view (planning and estimate,

processes, documentation, and so on), and these

tools can help in some of the tasks and activities of the

software development process. Currently, few software

development organizations have tools to support quality

management, mainly due to lack of information about

their availability. There are no guidelines to support

software development organizations in their selection.

Therefore, the objective of this research is to propose a

set of features that support the selection of software

quality management tools.

EVALUATION METHOD

DESMET is used to select methods for evaluating software

engineering methods and tools (Kitchenham,

Linkman, and Law 1996). DESMET is based on technical

(evaluation context, nature of the expected

impact of using the method or tool, nature of the

object to be evaluated, scope of impact of the method

or tool, maturity of the method or tool, learning curve

associated with the method or tool, and measurement

capability of the organization undertaking the evaluation)

and practical (elapsed time that is needed for the

different evaluation options, confidence that a user

can have in the results of an evaluation, and cost of an

evaluation) criteria in order to determine the most

appropriate evaluation method in specific circumstances

(Kitchenham, Linkman, and Law 1996).

The DESMET evaluation method separates evaluation

exercises into two main types: quantitative evaluations

aimed at establishing measurable effects of

using a method or tool; and qualitative evaluations

aimed at establishing method or tool appropriateness,

that is, how well a method or tool fits the needs and

culture of an organization. Some methods involve

both a subjective and an objective element. DESMET

calls these hybrid methods (Kitchenham, Linkman,

and Law 1996).

In addition to the separation between quantitative,

qualitative, and hybrid evaluations, there is another

dimension to an evaluation: the way in which the

evaluation is organized. DESMET has identified three

ways to organize an evaluation exercise: (Kitchenham,

Linkman, and Law 1996)

. As a formal experiment where many subjects

(that is, software engineers) are asked to perform

a task (or variety of tasks) using the

www.asq.org 19

Selecting Tools for Software Quality Management

methods or tools under investigation. Subjects

are assigned to each method or tool such that

results are unbiased and can be analyzed

using standard statistical techniques.
Join now!


2. As a case study where each method or tool

under investigation is tried out on a real project

using the standard project development

procedures of the evaluating organization.

3. As a survey where staff or organizations that

have used specific methods or tools on past

projects are asked to provide information

about the method or tool. Information from

the method or tool users can be analyzed

using standard statistical techniques.

In all, DESMET identified nine distinct evaluation

methods, including three quantitative evaluation

methods, four qualitative ...

This is a preview of the whole essay