Managing the software process
Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction
Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction
Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering
ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
Extreme Programming: A Survey of Empirical Data from a Controlled Case Study
ISESE '04 Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering
Evaluating the efficacy of test-driven development: industrial case studies
Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering
Defect Prevention: A General Framework and Its Application
QSIC '06 Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Quality Software
On the Sustained Use of a Test-Driven Development Practice at IBM
AGILE '07 Proceedings of the AGILE 2007
Cmmi® distilled: a practical introduction to integrated process improvement, third edition
Cmmi® distilled: a practical introduction to integrated process improvement, third edition
COMPSAC '08 Proceedings of the 2008 32nd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference
The impact of process choice in high maturity environments: An empirical analysis
ICSE '09 Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering
ESEM '09 Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
The Economics of Software Quality
The Economics of Software Quality
Empirical Software Engineering
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Context: A common assumption in software engineering is that a more structured process delivers higher quality products. However, there are limited empirical studies that support this assumption. Objective: In this paper we analyze 61 projects looking for a relationship between process structured and quality of the product. The structure is considered under two dimensions: level of maturity (as measured by the CMMI assessment model) and type (e.g. TSP, RUP). The quality of the product is measured in terms of Defect Density (DD) defined as the number of delivered defects divided per size. Results: We found a small and statistically not significant difference of DD between the projects developed under CMMI and those that are not developed under CMMI. Considering the CMMI levels, the pair (CMMI 1, CMMI 3) is characterized by a statistically significant different DD. CMMI 1 exhibiting higher DD than CMMI 3. By comparing different software processes with each other we found that Hybrid process exhibits statistically significant lower DD than Waterfall. Conclusion: Software process in either dimension, level of maturity and type has an impact on the software quality but smaller than one might expect.