A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW MEASUREMENT IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - State-of-the-art in Measures

Oswaldo Gómez, Hanna Oktaba, Mario Piattini, Félix García

2006

Abstract

The present work provides a summary of the state of art in software measures by means of a systematic review on the current literature. Nowadays, many companies need to answer the following questions: How to measure?, When to measure and What to measure?. There have been a lot of efforts made to attempt to answer these questions, and this has resulted in a large amount of data what is sometimes confusing and unclear information. This needs to be properly processed and classified in order to provide a better overview of the current situation. We have used a Measurement Software Ontology to classify and put the amount of data in this field in order. We have also analyzed the results of the systematic review, to show the trends in the software measurement field and the software process on which the measurement efforts have focused. It has allowed us to discover what parts of the process are not supported enough by measurements, to thus motivate future research in those areas.

References

  1. ANSI/PMI (2004), A Guide Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) an American National Standard, ANSI/PMI 99-001-2004, Third Edition, Project Management Institute, Inc., United Estates of America.
  2. Basili, V., Shull, F. y Lanubile, F., 1999, Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4), pp. 435- 437.
  3. Bansiya J. y Davis C., 2002, A Hierarchical Model for Object-Oriented Design Quality Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(1), 4-17.
  4. Briand, L., Morasca, S. y Basili, V., 1996. Property-Based Software Engineering Measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(1), pp. 68- 86.
  5. Brito e Abreu, F. y Carapuça, R., 1994, Object-Oriented Software Engineering: Measuring and controlling the development process. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software Quality, McLean (USA).
  6. Calero, C., Ruiz, J., Piattini, M., 2005, Classifying web metrics using the web quality model. Online Information Review. Vol 29 No 3, pp. 227-248
  7. Chidamber, S. y Kemerer, C., 1994. A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(6), pp. 476-493.
  8. Ebert, C., Dumke R., Bundschuh, M., Schmietendorf, A., 2004, Best Practices in Software Measurement. How to use metrics to improve project and process performance, 295 Seiten-Springer. Berlin, 1st Edition.
  9. Fenton, N. y Pfleeger, S.L., 1997, Software Metrics: A Rigorous & Practical Approach, PWS Publishing Company, Second Edition.
  10. Florac, W. A., Carleton, A. D., 1999. Measuring the Software Process. Statistical Process Control for Software Process Improvement, Addison-Wesley. United States of America, 1st Edition.
  11. García, F., Bertoa, M. F., Calero, C., Vallecillo, A., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., Genero, M., 2005. Towards a consistent terminology for software measurement. Information and Software Technology. xx (2005), pp. 1-14
  12. Henry, S. y Kafura, S., 1981, Software Structure Metrics Based on Information Flow. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 7(5), pp. 510-518.
  13. Humphrey, S.H., 2005, PSP A Self-Improvement Process for Software Engineers, Addison-Wesley. United States of America, 1st Edition.
  14. IFPUG, (2004), IFPUG: Function Point Counting Practices Manual, Release 4.2. International Function Point Users Group, USA -IFPUG, Mequon, Wisconsin, USA.
  15. Juristo, N. y Moreno, A. (2001). Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  16. Kitchenham, B., 2004. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Joint Technical Report Software Engineering Group, Department of Computer Science Keele University, United King and Empirical Software Engineering, National ICT Australia Ltd, Australia, pp. 1-28.
  17. Lorenz, M. y Kidd, J., 1994, Object-Oriented Software Metrics: A Practical Guide. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, Nueva Jersey.
  18. McCabe, T., 1976. A Software Complexity Measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2, pp. 308-320.
  19. Marchesi, M., 1998. OOA Metrics for the Unified Modeling Language. 2nd Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 1998, 67- 73
  20. Perry, D., Porte, A. y Votta, L. (2000). Empirical Studies of Software Engineering: A Roadmap. Future of Software Engineering, Ed. Anthony Finkelstein, ACM, pp. 345-355.
  21. Pfleeger, S. L.,1997. Assessing Software Measurement. IEEE Software. March/April. pp. 25-26.
  22. Piattini, M., García, F. O., 2003. Calidad en el desarrollo y mantenimiento de software, Ra-Ma. Spain, 1st Edition.
  23. Poels, G. y Dedene, G. (2000). Distance-based software measurement: necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology, 42(1), pp. 35-46.
  24. Putnam, L. H. y Myers, W., 1992. Measures for Excellence - Reliable software on time, within budget, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
  25. Raynus, J., 1999. Software Process Improvement with CMM, Artech House. United States of America, 1st Edition.
  26. Reynoso L., Genero M. y Piattini M. Measuring OCL Expressions: An Approach Based on Cognitive Techniques, 2004. Chapter 5 in “Metrics for Software Conceptual Models” (Eds. Genero M., Piattini M. and Calero C.). Imperial College Press, UK.
  27. Travassos G. H., Boilchi, J., Mian , P. G., Natali, A. C. C., 2005. Systematic Review in Software Engineering. Technical Report Programa de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computaçâo PESC, Systems Engineering and Computer Science Department COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janerio, pp. 1-30.
  28. Weyuker, E., 1988. Evaluating Software Complexity Measures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14(9), pp. 1357-1365.
  29. Whitmire, S., 1997. Object Oriented Design Measurement. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  30. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlson, M., Regnell, B. y Wesslén, A.,2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  31. Zuse, H. (1998). A Framework of Software Measurement. Berlin. Walter de Gruyter.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Gómez O., Oktaba H., Piattini M. and García F. (2006). A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW MEASUREMENT IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - State-of-the-art in Measures . In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 1: ICSOFT, ISBN 978-972-8865-69-6, pages 224-231. DOI: 10.5220/0001317102240231


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icsoft06,
author={Oswaldo Gómez and Hanna Oktaba and Mario Piattini and Félix García},
title={A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW MEASUREMENT IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - State-of-the-art in Measures},
booktitle={Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 1: ICSOFT,},
year={2006},
pages={224-231},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0001317102240231},
isbn={978-972-8865-69-6},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 1: ICSOFT,
TI - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW MEASUREMENT IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - State-of-the-art in Measures
SN - 978-972-8865-69-6
AU - Gómez O.
AU - Oktaba H.
AU - Piattini M.
AU - García F.
PY - 2006
SP - 224
EP - 231
DO - 10.5220/0001317102240231