Definition and Empirical Validation of Metrics for Software Process Models

  • Félix García
  • Francisco Ruiz
  • Mario Piattini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)


Software companies are becoming more and more concerned about software process improvement, when they are promoting the improvement of the final products. One of the main reason of the growing interest in software metrics has been the perception that software metrics are necessary for software process improvement. Measurement is essential for understanding, defining, managing and controlling the software development and maintenance processes and it is not possible to characterize the various aspects of development in a quantitative way without having a deep understanding of software development activities and their relationships. In this paper a representative set of metrics for software process models is presented in order to evaluate the influence of the software process models complexity in their quality. These metrics are focused on the main elements included in a model of software processes, and may provide the quantitative base necessary to evaluate the changes in the software processes in companies with high maturity levels. To demonstrate the practical utility of the metrics proposed at model level, an experiment has been achieved which has allowed us to obtain some conclusions about the influence of the metrics proposed on two sub-characteristics of the maintainability: understandability and modifiability, which besides confirm the results of a subjective experiment previously performed.


Software Process Work Product Empirical Validation Software Metrics Software Process Improvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Basili, V., Rombach, H.: The TAME project: towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(6), 728–738 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V., Shull, F., Lanubile, F.: Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4), 435–437 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briand, L., El Emam, K., Morasca, S.: Theoretical and empirical validation of software product measures. Technical Report ISERN-95-03, International Software Engineering Research Network (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briand., L., Wüst, J., Lounis, H.A.: Comprehensive Investigation of Quality Factors in Object-Oriented Designs: an Industrial Case Study. Technical Report ISERN-98- 29, International Software Engineering Research Network (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briand, L., Arisholm, S., Counsell, F., Houdek, F., Thévenod-Fosse, P.: Empirical Studies of Object-Oriented Artifacts, Methods, and Processes: State of the Art and Future Directions. Empirical Software Engineering 4(4), 387–404 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calero, C., Piattini, M., Genero, M.: Empirical Validation of referential metrics. Information Software and Technology. Special Issue on Controlled Experiments in Software Technology 43(15) (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fenton, N.: Metrics for Software Process Improvement. In: Haug, M., Olsen, E.W., Bergman, L. (eds.) Software Process Improvement: Metrics, Measurement and Process Modelling, pp. 34–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Metamodeling and Measurement for the Software Process Improvement. In: Proceedings of ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA 2003), Tunis, Tunisia, July 14-18 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    García, F., Ruiz, F., Cruz, J.A., Piattini, M.: Integrated Measurement for the Evaluation and Improvement of Software Processes. In: Oquendo, F. (ed.) EWSPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2786, pp. 94–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Proposal of Metrics for Software Process Models. Accepted for publication in Software Measurement European Forum 2004, Rome (January 28-30, 2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/IEC: ISO IEC 15504 TR2:1998, part 2: A reference model for processes and process capability (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morisio, M.: Measurement Processes are Software Too. Journal of Systems and Software 49(1) (December 1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perry, D., Porte, A., Votta, L.: Empirical Studies os Software Engineering: A Roadmap. In: Finkelstein, A. (ed.) Future of Software Engineering, pp. 345–355. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pfleeger, S.L.: Integrating Process and Measurement. In: Melton, A. (ed.) Software Measurement, pp. 53–74. International Thomson Computer Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sjoberg, D., Anda, B., Arisholm, E., Dyba, T., Jorgensen, M., Karahasanovic, A., Koren, E., Vokác, M.: Conducting Realistic Experiments in Software Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Software Engineering Institute (SEI). The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process (1995),
  18. 18.
    Software Engineering Institute (SEI). Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMISM), version 1.1 (March 2002), http://www.sei.cmu/cmmi/cmmi.html
  19. 19.
    Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification; adopted specification, version 1.0. Object Management Group (November 2002), Available in
  20. 20.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Félix García
    • 1
  • Francisco Ruiz
    • 1
  • Mario Piattini
    • 1
  1. 1.Alarcos Research GroupUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations