Cited By
View all- Khalid ARaza MAfsar PKhan RMohmand MRahman H(2025)A SWOT Analysis of Software Development Life Cycle Security MetricsJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.274437:1Online publication date: 22-Jan-2025
Value‐oriented quality metrics in software development: : Practical relevance from a software engineering perspective
Abstract
When following the principles of value‐based software engineering, business, customer satisfaction, and engineering considerations need to be balanced to develop and operate the software so that it satisfies the different stakeholders' expectations. This, however, requires knowing the relevant quality metrics covering these value‐oriented expectations and potential sources for their measurement. In this work, a categorisation of value‐oriented quality metrics that are practically relevant is presented. Therefore, the authors conducted an online survey with practitioners who assessed the relevance of 61 value‐oriented metrics, gathered from a preceding systematic mapping study. The authors grouped these metrics into 10 categories, based on financial, customer satisfaction, value proposition, and creation perspectives. Also, the authors examined the frequency of particular steps at which these measures accrue and identified their most relevant data sources. The participants rated metrics for feature reliability, performance, as well as test and development efficiency as most relevant for value orientation. According to the participants, the authors' collection covers all relevant metrics for addressing financial and market and feature usability aspects. The authors' categorisation and the metrics' relevance assessments shall support software engineers in selecting relevant metrics and their sources for software product development.
References
[1]
Wohlin, C., Aurum, A.: Criteria for selecting software requirements to create product value: an industrial empirical study. In: Biffl, S., et al. (eds.) Value‐based software engineering, pp. 179–200. Springer, Berlin (2006)
[2]
Nunamaker, J., et al.: Special issue: enhancing organizations’ intellectual bandwidth: the quest for fast and effective value creation. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 17(3), 3–8 (2000)
[3]
Martínez‐Fernández, S., et al.: Towards automated data integration in software analytics. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Real‐Time Business Intelligence and Analytics. BIRTE’18, pp. 6:1–6:5. ACM, New York (2018)
[4]
Martínez‐Fernández, S., et al.: Continuously assessing and improving software quality with software analytics tools: a case study. IEEE Access. 7, 68219–68239 (2019)
[5]
Forsgren, N., Kersten, M.: DevOps metrics. ACM Queue. 15(6), 1–16 (2018)
[6]
Bonacchi, M., Perego, P.: Customer analytics: definitions, measurement and models. In: Bonacchi, M., Perego, P. (eds.) Customer accounting: creating value with customer analytics. SpringerBriefs in accounting, pp. 13–35. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)
[7]
Fabijan, A., Olsson, H.H., Bosch, J.: Early value argumentation and prediction: an iterative approach to quantifying feature value. In: Abrahamsson, P., et al. (eds.) Product‐focused software process improvement, pp. 16–23. Springer International Publishing (2015)
[8]
Park, Y.J., et al.: Customer satisfaction index measurement and importance‐performance analysis for improvement of the mobile RFID services in Korea. In: PICMET’08 ‐ 2008 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering Technology, pp. 2657–2665. IEEE, Cape Town (2008) ISSN: 2159‐5100
[9]
Accenture Global Services Ltd. : Customer profitability and value analysis system. US Patent 8428997B2, 2013. Available from https://patents.google.com/patent/US8428997B2/en
[10]
Olsson, H.H., Bosch, J.: The HYPEX model: from opinions to data‐driven software development. In: Bosch, J. (ed.) Continuous software engineering, pp. 155–164. Springer, Cham (2014)
[11]
Kevic, K., et al.: Characterizing experimentation in continuous deployment: a case study on Bing. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE‐SEIP), pp. 123–132. Buenos Aires (2017)
[12]
Haindl, P., Plösch, R.: Focus areas, themes, and objectives of non‐functional requirements in DevOps: a systematic mapping study. In: 2020 46th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 394–403. IEEE, Portorož (2020)
[13]
Osterwalder, A., et al.: Value proposition design: how to create products and services customers want. Strategyzer (2014)
[14]
Boehm, B., Huang, L.G.: Value‐based software engineering: a case study. Computer. 36(3), 33–41 (2003)
[15]
Gruhn, V., Schäfer, C.: BizDevOps: because DevOps is not the end of the story. In: Fujita, H., Guizzi, G. (eds.) Intelligent software methodologies, tools and techniques. Communications in computer and information science, pp. 388–398. Springer International Publishing (2015)
[16]
Forbrig, P., Dittmar, A.: Integrating HCD into BizDevOps by using the subject‐oriented approach. In: Bogdan, C., et al. (eds.) Human‐centered software engineering. Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 327–334. Springer International Publishing (2019)
[17]
Urbach, N., et al.: The impact of digitalization on the IT department. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 61(1), 123–131 (2019)
[18]
RiunguKalliosaari, L., et al.: DevOps adoption benefits and challenges in practice: a case study. In: Abrahamsson, P., et al. (eds.) Product‐focused software process improvement. Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 590–597. Springer International Publishing (2016)
[19]
Senapathi, M., Buchan, J., Osman, H.: DevOps capabilities, practices, and challenges: insights from a case study. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018. EASE’18, pp. 57–67. ACM, New York (2018)
[20]
Di.Nitto, E., et al.: A software architecture framework for quality‐aware DevOps. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quality‐Aware DevOps, pp. 12–17. ACM, Saarbrücken (2016)
[21]
Shahin, M., et al.: Beyond continuous delivery: an empirical investigation of continuous deployment challenges. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, pp. 111–120. IEEE Press (2017)
[22]
ISO/IEC 25010 : Systems and software engineering – systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – system and software quality models. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2011)
[23]
Olsson, H.H., Bosch, J.: From requirements to continuous re‐prioritization of hypotheses. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Continuous Software Evolution and Delivery (CSED), pp. 63–69. ACM, Austin (2016)
[24]
Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L.: Personal opinion surveys. In: Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.K. (eds.) Guide to advanced empirical software engineering, pp. 63–92. Springer (2008)
[25]
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers, 1st ed. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ (2010)
[26]
Tikkanen, H., et al.: Managerial cognition, action and the business model of the firm. Manag. Decis. 43, 789–809 (2005)
[27]
Saxena, K.B.C., Deodhar, S.J., Ruohonen, M.: Business model innovation in software product industry: bringing business to the bazaar, 1st ed. Springer, New York (2016)
[28]
Jørgensen, S., Pedersen, L.: Redesign rather than standstill. In: Jørgensen, S., Pedersen, L. (eds.) RESTART sustainable business model innovation. Palgrave studies in sustainable business in association with future earth, pp. 55–74. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)
[29]
Ebert, C., Brinkkemper, S.: Software product management – an industry evaluation. J. Syst. Softw. 95, 10–18 (2014)
[30]
IEC 61508 : Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety‐related systems. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva (2010)
[31]
Brooke, J.: SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale (1996)
Recommendations
Experiences of software quality management using metrics through the life-cycle
ICSE '96: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Software engineeringMany software quality metrics to objectively grasp software products and process have been proposed in the past decades. In actual projects, quality metrics has been widely applied to manage software quality. However, there are still several problems ...
Managing the Component-Based Software Engineering with Metrics
SAST '97: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Assessment of Software Tools (SAST '97)Abstract: Describes the management of software development component characteristics, such as quality and/or complexity. We define a key problem in software development change: the software development complexity and the methods to reduce this. In ...
An Experimental Investigation of Software Metrics and Their Relationship to Software Development Effort
The results are reported of an experimental study of software metrics for a fairly large software system used in a real-time application. A number of issues are examined, including the mutual relationship between various software metrics and, more ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
© 2021 The Authors. IET Software published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Institution of Engineering and Technology.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
United States
Publication History
Published: 25 November 2021
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Khalid ARaza MAfsar PKhan RMohmand MRahman H(2025)A SWOT Analysis of Software Development Life Cycle Security MetricsJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.274437:1Online publication date: 22-Jan-2025