The impact of process maturity on defect density
Report
Share
•2 likes•1,265 views
The impact of process maturity on defect density
•2 likes•1,265 views
Report
Share
Context: A common assumption in software engineering is that a more structured process delivers higher quality products. However, there are limited empirical studies that support this assumption. Objective: In this paper we analyze 61 projects looking for a relationship between process structuredness and quality of the product. Method: The structuredness is considered under two dimensions: level of maturity (as measured by the CMMI assessment model) and type (e.g. TSP, RUP). The quality of the product is measured in terms of Defect Density (DD) defined as the number of delivered defects divided per size. Results: We found a small and statistically not significant difference of DD between the projects developed under CMMI and those that are not developed under CMMI. Considering the CMMI levels, the pair (CMMI 1, CMMI 3) is characterized by a statistically significant different DD. CMMI 1 exhibiting higher DD than CMMI 3. By comparing different software processes with each other we found that Hybrid process exhibits statistically significant lower DD than Waterfall. Conclusion: Software process in either dimension, level of maturity and type has an impact on the software quality but smaller than one might expect.
More Related Content
Similar to The impact of process maturity on defect density
Similar to The impact of process maturity on defect density(20)
More from Marco Torchiano
More from Marco Torchiano(14)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded(20)
The impact of process maturity on defect density
- 1. The Impact of Process Maturity on Defect Density Syed Muhammad Ali Shah, Maurizio Morisio, Marco Torchiano*
- 2. Software Process vs Software Quality
- 3. Structured Software Process Unstructured
- 4. Process structuredness • Level of maturity • as measured through the CMMI assessment model • Type • e.g. TSP, RUP …
- 5. Higher Defect Density Software Quality Lower Defect Density
- 6. Defect Density • Product quality measured in terms of Defect Density (DD) • defined as the number of delivered defects divided by size
- 7. Structured Higher Defect Density Lower Defect Density Unstructured
- 8. Research Questions RQ1: Does process maturity (i.e. different CMMI levels) affect defect density? RQ2: Do different software process types affect defect density?
- 9. Observational Study • Selected 61 software projects from a survey conducted by Capers Jones & Associates LLC in June 2011. • Large size projects (average size of above 69 KLoC) • Different domains (web, embeded, military, civilian etc)
- 10. Hypotheses Concerning RQ1: H00: There is no significant difference in terms of DD between projects assessed under CMMI and projects not assessed under CMMI. H10: There is no significant difference in terms of DD among projects developed under different CMMI levels.
- 11. Hypotheses Concerning RQ2 H20: There is no significant difference in terms of DD among projects adopting different types of software processes. Then, upon rejection of null hypothesis: Post-hoc investigation of the pair-wise differences (considering correction for multiple tests)
- 12. Pair wise Comparison H1.10: DDL1 = DDL2 (Projects developed in L1 have the same defect density as those developed in L2) H1.1a: DDL1 ≠ DDL2 (Projects developed in L1 have not the same defect density as those developed in L2) H2.10: DDP1 = DDP2 (Projects developed in P1 have the same defect density as those developed in P2) H2.1a: DDP1 ≠ DDP2 (Projects developed in P1 have not the same defect density as those developed in P2)
- 13. DD of projects ( Assessed under CMMI vs. not Assessed under CMMI ) Mann-Whitney p = 0.70 Std Group N Mean Median Dev Assessed 33 3.1 3.2 1.6 CMMI Not Assessed 28 3.8 3.3 2.66
- 14. Projects DD (different CMMI levels ) Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.01 * Std Group N Mean Median Dev CMMI 1 9 4.3 4.1 0.79 Maturity CMMI 3 15 3.1 3.0 1.25 Level’s CMMI 5 9 2.0 1.25 2.2
- 15. Projects DD (pair-wise differences) Mann-Whitney p =0.023 Mann-Whitney p = 0.06 αB =α/2=0.025
- 16. Projects DD (different processes) Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.001 Std Group N Mean Median Dev Unstructured Cowboy dev 4 6.0 5.8 3.4 Agile (scrum) 6 4.9 3.4 3.2 Software Water Fall 10 4.1 4.0 0.9 Process Rational Unified Process 7 2.7 2.8 1.1 Team Software Process 4 2.2 2.2 1.1 Hybrid Process 5 0.8 0.7 0.7
- 17. Projects DD (pairwise differences) Mann-Whitney p = 0.0027 αB =α/15=0.003
- 18. Conclusions No significant DD difference between projects assessed under CMMI and not assessed. Significant DD difference among projects developed under different CMMI levels but apparently only between Level 1 and Level 3 Significant DD difference among projects adopting different software process types but apparently only between Waterfall and Hybrid
- 19. Thank You
Editor's Notes
- We test the hypothesis H0 0 with Mann-Whitney test for differences. The test reports a p-value = 0.7013 which is above the threshold. Therefore, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, Meaning, there is no significant difference of DD between the projects certified under CMMI and those not assessed.
- To test H1 0 we select the Kruskal-Wallis test. The test reports a p-value = 0.009, which is below the threshold. Therefore, we can reject the null hypothesis. Meaning there is a difference in terms of DD among projects developed under different CMMI levels.
- We test the H1.1 0 for the two possible adjacent pairs of CMMI levels, i.e. (CMMI 1, CMMI 3), (CMMI 3, CMMI 5) by means of the Mann-Whitney test. Adopted an divided by 2 (0.025) according to the Bonferroni rule. (CMMI 3, CMMI 5) we obtained the p-value 0.06, which is larger than 0.025, therefore we cannot reject the corresponding null hypotheses. (CMMI 1, CMMI 3) the p-value is 0.023, therefore we can reject the null hypothesis. Significant difference can be considered large (Cohen’s d = 1.14), CMMI 3 projects have a DD that is on average 1.2 defects per KLoC smaller than CMMI 1 projects.
- To test H2 0 we selected Kruskal-Wallis test. The test reports a p-value = 0.001, which is below the threshold. Therefore, we can reject the null hypothesis. Given the above result, we precede with the pair wise comparisons. We test the H2.1 0 for all possible pairs of software processes by Mann-Whitney test.
- We adopted an divided by 15 according to the Bonferroni rule. For all pairs except (Waterfall, Hybrid) we obtained p-values > 0.003, therefore we cannot reject the corresponding null hypotheses. For (Waterfall, Hybrid) we obtained p–value = 0.0027 < (0.003) therefore we can reject the corresponding null hypothesis indicating that they have statistical different DD.