Should we try to measure software quality attributes directly?

• Authors: John Moses
• Venue: Software Quality Control
• Year: 2009

Most external software quality attributes are conceptually subjective. For example, maintainability is an external software quality attribute, and it is subjective because interpersonally agreed definitions for the attribute include the phrase `the ease with which maintenance tasks can be performed'. Subjectivity clearly makes measurement of the attributes and validation of prediction systems for the attributes problematic. In fact, in spite of the definitions, few statistically valid attempts at determining the predictive capability of prediction systems for external quality attributes have been published. When validations have been attempted, one approach used is to ask experts to indicate if the values provided by the prediction system informally agree with the experts' intuition. These attempts are undertaken without determining, independently of the prediction system, whether the experts are capable of direct consistent measurement of the attribute. Hence, a statistically valid and unbiased estimate of the predictive capability of the prediction system cannot be obtained (because the experts' measurement process is not independent of the prediction system's values). In this paper, it is argued that the problem of subjective measurement of quality attributes should not be ignored if quality is to be introduced into software in a controlled way. Further, it is argued that direct measurement of quality attributes should be encouraged and that in fact such measurement can be quantified to establish consistency using an existing approach. However, the approach needs to be made more accessible to promote its use. In so doing, it would be possible to decide whether consistent independent estimates of the true values of software quality attributes can be assigned and prediction systems for quality attributes developed.