• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Evaluationg software quality practices in European industry
 

Evaluationg software quality practices in European industry

on

  • 288 views

Presentation by Javier Perez (Software Engineering Lab at Département d'Informatique of UMONS). Presented during BENEVOL 2012 seminar on software evolution in Delft, The Netherlands, on December 3, ...

Presentation by Javier Perez (Software Engineering Lab at Département d'Informatique of UMONS). Presented during BENEVOL 2012 seminar on software evolution in Delft, The Netherlands, on December 3, 2012.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
288
Views on SlideShare
288
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Evaluationg software quality practices in European industry Evaluationg software quality practices in European industry Presentation Transcript

    • Evalua&ng)So,ware)Quality)Prac&ces)in)Industry)in)Europe)Preliminary*Results* Javier*Pérez,*Tom*Mens,*Jorge*Pinna*Puissant* Université*de*Mons* * Alexander*Serebrenik* Technische*Universiteit*Eindhoven* *
    • Context) Portefeuille*TIC**  ERDF*project*lead*by*CETIC*(2007M2013)*   CEIQS:*Center*of*experSse*in*engineering*and*quality*of*systems**   aimed*at*developing*a*porUolio*of*innovaSve*techniques*allowing*local* companies*to*master*the*diversity,*complexity,*quality*and*rapid*evoluSon*of* informaSon*systems*   workpackage*QUALGEN*   collaboraSon*between*FUNDP*and*UMONS*since*2010* *  Supported*by*Wallonia*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 2*
    • Objec&ves) Explore*qualityMrelated*soware*development* pracSce*in*industry*  Target:*Companies*involved*in*soware*development*or** soware*maintenance*in*Europe*  Procedure:*OnMline*quesSonnaire* * Compare*this*across*different*countries*  Survey*in*4*languages*(English,*French,*Spanish,*Dutch)* *BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 3*
    • Pilot)Study) Online*survey*carried*out*in*the*Walloon*region*  Carried*out*from*29/5*to*30/6*2012*  44*full*useful*responses*from*188*parScipants* Obtained*iniSal*results*  Popularity*of*processes,*tools*and*techniques*  Some*pracSces*seem*to*vary*with*company*size* *BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 4*
    • Pilot)Study:)Popularity)Results) quality)improvement)tools)and)techniques) Most)popular)   Version*control*(97,6%)*and*bug*tracking*(92,7%)*plaUorms*   Wide*use*of*tesSng:*97,7%*   Design*pagerns:*72,7%*   Refactoring:*58,5%* Moderate)popularity)   Design*improvement*(e.g.*code*smell*reducSon):*42,9%*   Bad*quality*detecSon*tools:*36,8%*   Metrics*and*visualisaSon*tools:*35,7%*   Dynamic*analysis*tools*(profiling*etc.):*36,6%* Unpopular)   Use*of*quality*models:*19,4%*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 5*
    • Pilot)Study:)Popularity)Results) process)related) Most)popular)   Agile*pracSces*(63,6%)*   Change*and*configuraSon*management*processes*(73,8%)* Moderate)popularity)   Development*processes*(45,5%)*   Test*processes*(46,5%)*   Quality*support/improvement*process*(32,4%)* All*respondents*believe*that*quality(assurance(and*tes.ng*are*very* important*for*project*success*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 6*
    • Pilot)Study:Effect)of)Company)Size) * *   Agile*pracSces*popular*regardless*of*company*size*   No*clear*difference*in*development*process*across*company*sizes*   Quality*process*mostly*used*by*big*and*medium*companies**   Micro*companies*behave*differently*(regarding*processes*and*agile)*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 7*
    • Survey)Summary) Topics*addressed*  Use*of*a*parScular*development*process*  Use*of*structural*soware*quality*measurement*and*improvement*  Use*of*tesSng*  Use*of*quality*models*and*quality*standards*  Development*tool*support*for*the*above** * Survey*procedure*  Online*quesSonnaire:*October*–*November*2012*  46*quesSons*  Convenience*sampling*–*invitaSons*sent*to*potenSal*respondents*  171*useful*responses**(unSl*15*November)*   155*from*NL*(51%),*BE*(18%),*ES*(16%),*FR*(15%)*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 8*
    • Company)Size)Distribu&on) Small − 42 (27%) Micro − 33 (21%) NAs − 2 (1%) Medium − 18 (12%) Big − 60 (39%)BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 9*
    • Processes) Usage*of*development*processes*  No*difference*between*countries*(more*imposed*in*France)*  Difference*by*company*size,*processes*increasedly*used*and* followed*by*company*size:* 100%* 90%* 80%* 70%* 60%* Used* 50%* 40%* Always*or*frequently* 30%* strictly*followed* 20%* 10%* 0%* Micro* Small* Medium* Big*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 10*
    • Agile)Methodologies) Usage*of*agile*methodologies*  Generalized*in*all*countries*  Balance*between*selfMchoice*and*imposed*for*small*and*big* companies* 60%* 50%* 40%* Imposed* 30%* Self*choice* 20%* Not*used* 10%* 0%* Micro* Small* Medium* Big*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 11*
    • Design) Design*artefacts*and*documentaSon*  Documented*design?*No*difference*by*country*(48%*M*65%)**  Increased*use*and*imposiSon*by*size,*selfMchosen*in*small* companies* 50%* * 45%* 40%* * 35%* 30%* Imposed* 25%* Self*choice* 20%* 15%* Not*used* 10%* 5%* 0%* Micro* Small* Medium* Big*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 12*
    • Design) UpdaSng*design*artefacts*and*documentaSon*  Bigger*companies*update*more*frequently*  Small*companies*update*less*frequently*than*micro* Big**Medium* Never/scarcely* Small* Frequent/conSnuously* Micro* 0%* 20%* 40%* 60%* 80%* 100%*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 13*
    • Use)of)Design)PaKerns)  No*significant*difference* between*countries* (popularity*between* 69%*and*77%)* Big*  More*imposed*in*big* companies* Medium* Imposed*  Less*used*in*micro* Self*choice* companies* Small* Not*used* * Micro* 0%* 20%* 40%* 60%* 80%* 100%* *BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 14*
    • Change)Management)Processes)  Increased*usage*by*company*size* * * Big* Medium* Imposed* Self*choice* Small* No* Micro* 0%* 20%* 40%* 60%* 80%* 100%*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 15*
    • Test)Processes) By*company*size*  Increased*usage*and*imposiSon*by*company*size* * Big* * Medium* Imposed* Self*choice* Small* Not*used* Micro* 0%* 20%* 40%* 60%* 80%* 100%*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 16*
    • Tes&ng)&me) By*company*size*  Similar*distribuSon*for*big*and*micro*  Medium*15%*M*25%** Big*  Small*5%*M*15%* Less*than*5%* * Medium* Between*5%*and* 15%* * Between*15%*and* Small* 25%* More*than*25%* Micro* 0%* 50%* 100%*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 17*
    • Quality)Processes) By*company*size*  Increasedly*more*used*and*imposed*by*company*size* * * Big* Medium* Imposed* * Self*choice* Small* No* I*dont*know* Micro* 0%* 20%* 40%* 60%* 80%* 100%*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 18*
    • Quality)Models) By*company*size*  Increased*usage*by*company*size*  More*“I*don’t*knows”*in*medium*companies* * Big* * Medium* Yes* * No* Small* I*dont*know* Micro* 0%* 50%* 100%*BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 19*
    • Country)&)Size)Distribu&on) Not*evenly*distributed*  Results*might*be*biased*  Get*more*responses*or*adjust*the*results* * Micro Small Medium Big Belgium 7 8 1 12 France 8 5 3 6 Netherlands 16 17 8 37 Spain 2 12 6 5BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 20*
    • Conclusions) Not*clear*differences*between*countries*  Small*differences*for*some*parScular*cases* ** Differences*company*size*  No*difference*for*agile*methodologies*  Usage*increases*by*size*for*the*rest:*processes,*usage*and*updates*of* design*documents,*tesSng*processes*and*dedicated*Sme,*quality* processes*and*models*  ImposiSon*of*processes*or*pracSces*increases*with*company*size* *  Help*for*gathering*more*contacts*and*improving*the*sample* distribuSon* *BENEVOL 2012 Soware*Quality*PracSces*in*Europe****************|****************Pérez,*Serebrenik,*Mens,*Pinna*Puissant* 21*