Measurement Program

  • Miroslaw Staron
  • Wilhelm Meding


In this chapter, we build on the theoretical concepts of measurement and discuss the notion of a company-wide measurement program. We describe what a measurement program is and the components that build it up. We go also into details on how we know if a measurement program is successful or not, and whether we need the help of expert consultants and expensive tools to build and maintain a measurement program. We look into how measurement programs can be scaled to suit different company and organizational sizes. These are some of the topics we have addressed over the years, while working with measurement programs at software intensive industry companies. The aim of this chapter is to describe what a measurement program is, how to design, implement and maintain it, and most important, how to succeed in doing so. The goal of this chapter is that you the “company,” or you the “organization,” will be able to do this successfully on your own.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Abr10]
    Alain Abran. Software metrics and software metrology. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. [CN02]
    Paul Clements and Linda Northrop. Software product lines. Addison-Wesley,, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. [DYB90]
    Michael K Daskalantonakis, Robert H Yacobellis, and Victor R Basili. A method for assessing software measurement technology. Quality Engineering, 3(1):27–40, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [GBC80]
    Paul S Goodman, Max Bazerman, and Edward Conlon. Institutionalization of planned organizational change. In Research in Organizational Behavior, pages 215–246. JAI Press, Greenwich, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. [ISO07]
    ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 15939:2007 Systems and Software Engineering – Measurement Process, 2007.Google Scholar
  6. [ISO16]
    ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 25000 - Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). Technical report, International Standards Organization, 2016.Google Scholar
  7. [Jor99]
    M. Jorgensen. Software quality measurement. Advances in Engineering Software, 30(12):907–912, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Kil01]
    T. Kilpi. Implementing a software metrics program at Nokia. IEEE Software, 18(6):72–77, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Kru04]
    Philippe Kruchten. The rational unified process: An introduction. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. [NvV00]
    F. Niessink and H. van Vliet. Measurements should generate value, rather than data. In 6th International Software Metrics Symposium, pages 31–38, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. [NvV01]
    Frank Niessink and Hans van Vliet. Measurement program success factors revisited. Information and Software Technology, 43(10):617–628, 2001. TY - JOUR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [SM16]
    Miroslaw Staron and Wilhelm Meding. Mesram–a method for assessing robustness of measurement programs in large software development organizations and its industrial evaluation. Journal of Systems and Software, 113:76–100, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [SMKN10]
    M. Staron, W. Meding, G. Karlsson, and C. Nilsson. Developing measurement systems: an industrial case study. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, pages n/a–n/a, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. [SMT+]
    Miroslaw Staron, Wilhelm Meding, Matthias Tichy, Jonas Bjurhede, Holger Giese, and Ola Söder. Industrial experiences from evolving measurement systems into self-healing systems for improved availability. Software: Practice and Experience.Google Scholar
  15. [Sta12]
    Miroslaw Staron. Critical role of measures in decision processes: Managerial and technical measures in the context of large software development organizations. Information and Software Technology, 54(8):887–899, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [UE05]
    M. Umarji and H. Emurian. Acceptance issues in metrics program implementation. In H. Emurian, editor, 11th IEEE International Symposium Software Metrics, pages 10–17, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. [UGI+12]
    Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Tony Gorschek, AKM Moinul Islam, Chow Kian Cheng, Rahadian Bayu Permadi, and Robert Feldt. Evaluation and measurement of software process improvement – a systematic literature review. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 38(2):398–424, 2012.Google Scholar
  18. [UGI+14]
    Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Tony Gorschek, AKM Islam, Chow Kian Cheng, Rahadian Bayu Permadi, and Robert Feldt. A conceptual framework for SPI evaluation. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 26(2):251–279, 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miroslaw Staron
    • 1
  • Wilhelm Meding
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Ericsson ABGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations