Advertisement

Abstract

A considerable number of software projects still exceed time and budget or completely fail, because the qualitative situations of these projects are not visible to the management. The problem can be resolved by monitoring the quality of project results and by steering a project at certain major points (so-called Quality Gates). At each Quality Gate the project results are checked against predefined criteria being derived from carefully chosen metrics. Many software companies use Quality Gates but unfortunately a theoretical reflection on the definition of criteria for Quality Gates is missing. This paper shows, when and how these criteria can be identified and improved over time. Our results obtained from students’ software projects show, that the application of a systematic top-down approach (such as GQM) delivers better criteria and that roughly a considerable number of the criteria could be improved after experiences have been captured and reused systematically.

Keywords

Practical measurement application Measurement acceptance Quality Gates 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pfeifer, T., Schmidt, R.: Das Quality-Gate-Konzept: Entwicklungsprojekte softwareintensiver Systeme verlässlich planen. Industrie Management 19(5), 21–24 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hawlitzky, N.: Integriertes Qualitätscontrolling von Unternehmensprozessen - Gestaltung eines Quality Gate-Konzeptes. In: Wildemann, H. (ed.) TCW Wissenschaft und Praxis. TCW Transfer-Centrum, München (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Solingen, R.v., Berghout, E. (eds.): The Goal/Question/Metric Method - A Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development. McGraw-Hill, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schneider, K.: Abenteuer Softwarequalität, p. 212. dpunkt verlag, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knauss, E.: Einsatz computergestützter Kritiken für Anforderungen. GI Softwaretechnik-Trends 27(1), 27–28 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Experience factory. In: Marciniak, J.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 469–476. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flohr, T.: NetQGate - Tool Support for Quality Gate Processes. In: 9th International Conference on Quality Engineering in Software Technology (CONQUEST). dpunkt verlag, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lübke, D., Flohr, T.: Simulated Software Project Driven by Quality Gates. In: Electronics World, 2006, vol. 1840, pp. 38–42 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lübke, D., Flohr, T., Schneider, K.: Serious Insights through Playful Software-Projects. In: Dingsøyr, T. (ed.) EuroSPI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3281, pp. 57–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wohlin, C., et al.: Experimentation In Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Flohr
    • 1
  1. 1.FG Software EngineeringLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations