A Descriptive/Comparative Study of the Evolution of Process Models of Software Development Life Cycles (PM-SDLCs)

Typical traditional software development models are initially designed for company-style software project teams. They also assume a typical software project that has somewhat clear goals, scope, budget, and plan. Even Agile development models that are very flexible in considering previous project parameters assume somewhat stable team and project structures. However, in recent years, the authors have noticed expansion in software projects that are developed in a very illusive flexible team, scope, budget, and plan structures. Examples of such projects are those projects offered in open competition (also called crowd sourcing) structure for software developers to be part of. In typical open competition projects, initial, high level project ideas are submitted to the public through the Internet. The project initiators give their initial requirements, constraints, and conditions for successful products or submissions. Teams can be organized before or through the competition. Submission and evaluation of deliverables from teams are subjected to project initiator evaluation along with evaluation teams organized through the open competition host. This chapter investigates all traditional project characteristics. The authors elaborate on all those elements that should be modified to fit the open competition agile structure. They use several case studies to demonstrate management issues related to managing software projects in open competitions.

Download Full-text

Object-Oriented Cognitive Complexity Measures

Computer Systems and Software Engineering ◽

10.4018/978-1-5225-3923-0.ch036 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 917-940

Author(s):

Sanjay Misra ◽

Adewole Adewumi

Keyword(s):

Software Development ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Critical Review ◽

Cognitive Complexity ◽

Object Oriented ◽

Point Of View ◽

Complexity Measures ◽

Cognitive Informatics ◽

Validation Criteria ◽

Object Oriented Metrics

This chapter presents the analysis of ten recently proposed object-oriented metrics based on cognitive informatics. The metrics based on cognitive informatics use cognitive weight. Cognitive weight is the representation of the understandability of the piece of software that evaluates the difficulty experienced in comprehending and/or performing the piece of software. Development of metrics based on Cognitive Informatics (CI) is a new area of research, and from this point of view, for the analysis of these metrics, it is important to know their acceptability from other existing evaluation and validation criteria. This chapter presents a critical review on existing object-oriented cognitive complexity measures. In addition, a comparative study based on some selected attributes is presented.

Download Full-text

Tool-Support for Software Development Processes

Social, Managerial, and Organizational Dimensions of Enterprise Information Systems ◽

10.4018/978-1-60566-856-7.ch011 ◽

2010 ◽

pp. 213-231 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Marco Kuhrmann ◽

Georg Kalus ◽

Gerhard Chroust

Keyword(s):

Software Development ◽

Human Factors ◽

Open Source ◽

Development Process ◽

Process Models ◽

Tool Support ◽

Development Projects ◽

Crucial Step ◽

Development Processes ◽

The Many

Software development projects are complex. The more complex a project is, the higher are the requirements related to the software development process. The implementation of a process is a great challenge. This, in part, has to do with human factors (acceptance, etc.) as the benefits of a formal development process might not be obvious immediately and it may take a while until the process becomes the lifeblood of a team. A crucial step towards implementing, enacting and enforcing a process is to provide tool support for the many activities the process asks for. Tool support is necessary to guarantee efficiency in the project, to do the housekeeping and to minimize the “overhead” of the process. This chapter describes challenges and options for supporting process models by tools. Furthermore it describes concrete samples and shows how tool chains can be created with commercial tools as well as with open source tools.

Download Full-text

Relating Software Quality Models and Process Methods to User Value

International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals ◽

10.4018/jhcitp.2013040103 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 27-42 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mohamed A Sheriff ◽

Elli Georgiadou

Keyword(s):

Risk Management ◽

Quality Management ◽

Software Development ◽

Software Quality ◽

Process Models ◽

Quality Model ◽

Quality Models ◽

Software Quality Management ◽

Risk Management Process ◽

User Value

The ultimate object of software development should be to deliver value to all stakeholders. The traditional approach to delivering this value is to ensure that the software developed is of the highest quality. A number of quality models have been proposed to specify or describe what constitutes high quality software. The ISO9126 is one such model and perhaps the most comprehensive. Similarly, there are several methods, frameworks and guidelines for ensuring software quality in either the development or use process or both. Software Quality Management and Risk Management are probably the two most popular methods employed by developers during software development and implementation to deliver quality. In this paper the authors examine whether, and to what extent, the implied value propositions of software products as portrayed by the ISO9126 quality model and the prescribed processes in Software Quality Management and Risk Management, map onto user value perceptions and experiences. An ontology of value, in the form of a value tree, is developed and used to identify and analyse the key value dimensions of the ISO9126 quality model and the Software Quality Management and Risk Management process methods. These are then mapped onto contextualised user value characterisations derived from the extant literature. Differences identified are analysed and discussed and the authors suggest approaches that could narrow the perennial gap between idealised quality product and process models and stakeholder perceptions and actualisations of software value.

Download Full-text