Evaluationg software quality practices in European industry

434 views
330 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
434
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluationg software quality practices in European industry

  1. 1. 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* *
  2. 2. 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*
  3. 3. 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*
  4. 4. 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*
  5. 5. 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*
  6. 6. 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*
  7. 7. 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*
  8. 8. 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*
  9. 9. 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*
  10. 10. 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*
  11. 11. 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*
  12. 12. 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*
  13. 13. 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*
  14. 14. 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*
  15. 15. 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*
  16. 16. 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*
  17. 17. 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*
  18. 18. 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*
  19. 19. 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*
  20. 20. 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*
  21. 21. 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*

×