15 Fakultätsübergreifend / Sonstige Einrichtung

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/16

Browse

Institute: search.filters.UBSInstitut.Institut für SoftwaretechnologieAuthor: search.filters.author.Lochmann, Klaus

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Are comprehensive quality models necessary for evaluating software quality?
    (2013) Lochmann, Klaus; Ramadani, Jasmin; Wagner, Stefan
    The concept of software quality is very complex and has many facets. Reflecting all these facets and at the same time measuring everything related to these facets results in comprehensive but large quality models and extensive measurements. In contrast, there are also many smaller, focused quality models claiming to evaluate quality with few measures. We investigate if and to what extent it is possible to build a focused quality model with similar evaluation results as a comprehensive quality model but with far less measures needed to be collected and, hence, reduced effort. We make quality evaluations with the comprehensive Quamoco base quality model and build focused quality models based on the same set of measures and data from over 2,000 open source systems. We analyse the ability of the focused model to predict the results of the Quamoco model by comparing them with a random predictor as a baseline. We calculate the standardised accuracy measure SA and effect sizes. We found that for the Quamoco model and its 378 automatically collected measures, we can build a focused model with only 10 measures but an accuracy of 61% and a medium to high effect size. We conclude that we can build focused quality models to get an impression of a system’s quality similar to comprehensive models. However, when including manually collected measures, the accuracy of the models stayed below 50%. Hence, manual measures seem to have a high impact and should therefore not be ignored in a focused model.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Operationalised product quality models and assessment: the Quamoco approach
    (2015) Wagner, Stefan; Goeb, Andreas; Heinemann, Lars; Kläs, Michael; Lampasona, Constanza; Lochmann, Klaus; Mayr, Alois; Plösch, Reinhold; Seidl, Andreas; Streit, Jonathan; Trendowicz, Adam
    Context: Software quality models provide either abstract quality characteristics or concrete quality measurements; there is no seamless integration of these two aspects. Quality assessment approaches are, hence, also very specific or remain abstract. Reasons for this include the complexity of quality and the various quality profiles in different domains which make it difficult to build operationalised quality models. Objective: In the project Quamoco, we developed a comprehensive approach aimed at closing this gap. Method: The project combined constructive research, which involved a broad range of quality experts from academia and industry in workshops, sprint work and reviews, with empirical studies. All deliverables within the project were peer-reviewed by two project members from a different area. Most deliverables were developed in two or three iterations and underwent an evaluation. Results: We contribute a comprehensive quality modelling and assessment approach: (1) A meta quality model defines the structure of operationalised quality models. It includes the concept of a product factor, which bridges the gap between concrete measurements and abstract quality aspects, and allows modularisation to create modules for specific domains. (2) A largely technology-independent base quality model reduces the effort and complexity of building quality models for specific domains. For Java and C# systems, we refined it with about 300 concrete product factors and 500 measures. (3) A concrete and comprehensive quality assessment approach makes use of the concepts in the meta-model. (4) An empirical evaluation of the above results using real-world software systems showed: (a) The assessment results using the base model largely match the expectations of experts for the corresponding systems. (b) The approach and models are well understood by practitioners and considered to be both consistent and well suited for getting an overall view on the quality of a software product. The validity of the base quality model could not be shown conclusively, however. (5) The extensive, open-source tool support is in a mature state. (6) The model for embedded software systems is a proof-of-concept for domain-specific quality models. Conclusion: We provide a broad basis for the development and application of quality models in indus- trial practice as well as a basis for further extension, validation and comparison with other approaches in research.