Applying GQM in an industrial software factory

ABSTRACT

Goal/Question/Metric GQM) is a paradigm for the systematic definition, establishment, and exploitation of measurement programs supporting the quantitative evaluation of softare processes and products. Although GQM is a quite well-known method, detailed guidelines for establishing a GQM program in an industrial environment are still limited. Also, there are few reported experiences on the application of GQM to industrial cases. Finally, the technological support for GQM is still inadequate. This article describes the experience we have gained in applying GQM at Digital Laboratries in Italy. The procedures, experiences, and technology that have been employed in this study are largely reusable by other industrial organizations willing to introduce a GQM-based measurement program in their development environments.

REFERENCES

• 1: Victor R. Basili, The Experience Factory and its Relationship to Other Improvement Paradigms, Proceedings of the 4th European Software Engineering Conference on Software Engineering, p.68-83, September 13-17, 1993
• 2: BASILI, V. 1994. GQM approach has evolved to include models. IEEE Softw. 11, 1, 8.
• 3: BASILI, V. AND ROMBACH, D. 1988. The TAME project: Towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 14, 6, 758-773.
• 4: BASILI, V. AND WEISS, D. 1984. A methodology for collecting valid software engineering data. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-IO, 6, 728-738.
• 5: BASILI, V., CALDIERA, G., AND ROMBACH, D. 1994. Goal/question/metric paradigm. In Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Vol. 1, J. C. Marciniak, Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 528-532.
• 6: Victor R. Basili , Michael K. Daskalantonakis , Robert H. Yacobellis, Technology Transfer at Motorola, IEEE Software, v.11 n.2, p.70-76, March 1994 [doi>10.1109/52.268959]
• 7: BRIAND, L., EL EMAM, K., AND MORASCA, S. 1996. On the application of measurement theory in software engineering. Emp. Softw. Eng. 1, I.
• 8: IEEE Software Staff, What Makes for Effective Measurement?, IEEE Software, v.10 n.6, p.94-95, November 1993
• 9: Norman E. Fenton, Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach, Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London, UK, 1991
• 10: N. Fenton, Software Measurement: A Necessary Scientific Basis, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.20 n.3, p.199-206, March 1994 [doi>10.1109/32.268921]
• 11: Robert B. Grady , Deborah L. Caswell, Software metrics: establishing a company-wide program, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1987
• 12: GRESSE, C., HOISL, B., AND WUST, J. 1995. A process model for planning GQM-based measurement. Software Technology Transfer Initiative. Tech. Rep. STTI-95-04-E, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
• 13: GRESSE, C., ROMBACK, D., AND RUHE, G. 1996. Tutorial: A practical approach for building GQM-based measurement programs--Lessons learned from three industrial case studies. In Proceedings of the l Oth Brasilian Symposium on Software Engineering.
• 14: HEFNER, K.K. 1995. An experience-based optimization of the Goal/Question/Paradigm. In Proceedings of the California Software Symposium (Irvine, Calif).
• 15: JUDD, C. M., SMITH, E. R., AND KIDDER, L.H. 1991. Research Methods in Social Relations. 6th ed. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., Fort Worth, TX.
• 16: LOFLAND, J. AND LOFLAND, L.H. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings. 3rd ed. Wadswoth.
• 17: NIST. 1993. Integration Definition for Function Modeling, IDEF0. Federal Processing Standards Publications. NIST, Gaithersburg, Md. Dec.
• 18: Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Lessons Learned in Building a Corporate Metrics Program, IEEE Software, v.10 n.3, p.67-74, May 1993 [doi>10.1109/52.210606]
• 19: Steven P. Reiss, Connecting Tools Using Message Passing in the Field Environment, IEEE Software, v.7 n.4, p.57-66, July 1990 [doi>10.1109/52.56450]
• 20: CORPORATE Carnegie Mellon University , Mark C. Paulk , Charles V. Weber , Bill Curtis , Mary Beth Chrissis, The capability maturity model: guidelines for improving the software process, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1995
• 21: SEL. 1995. Software Measurement Guidebook. SEL-94-102. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD.
• 22: SOFTWARE RESEARCH. 1993. STWTM User Guide. Software Research, Inc.
• 23: VAN SOLINGEN, R., VAN LATUM, F., OIvO, M., AND BERGHOUT, E. 1995. Application of software measurement at Schlumberger RPS. In Proceedings of the 6th European Software Cost Modeling Conference (ESCOM) (Paris, France).
• 24: Lawrence G. Votta , Mary L. Zajak, Design Process Improvement Case Study Using Process Waiver Data, Proceedings of the 5th European Software Engineering Conference, p.44-58, September 25-28, 1995
• 25: Lawrence G. Votta , Adam Porter, Experimental software engineering: a report on the state of the art, Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Software engineering, p.277-279, April 24-28, 1995, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/225014.225040]
• 26: WEISS, D. 1994. GQM plus heuristics better than brainstorming. IEEE Softw. 11, 1, 8-9.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques
          Subjects: Computer-aided software engineering (CASE)

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.8 Metrics
          Subjects: Performance measures
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Software quality assurance (SQA); Productivity

General Terms:
Experimentation, Management, Measurement

Keywords:
GQM, measurement cost, measurement process