Agile software development methodologies focus on software projects which are behind schedule or highly likely to have a problematic development phase. In the last decade, Agile methods have transformed from cult techniques to mainstream methodologies. Scrum, an Agile software development method, has been widely adopted due to its adaptive nature. This paper presents a metric that measures the quality of the testing process in a Scrum process. As product quality and process quality correlate, improved test quality can ensure high quality products. Also, gaining experience from eight years of successful Scrum implementation at SoftwarePeople, we describe the Scrum process emphasizing the testing process. We propose a metric Product Backlog Rating (PBR) to assess the testing process in Scrum. PBR considers the complexity of the features to be developed in an iteration of Scrum, assesses test ratings and offers a numerical score of the testing process. This metric is able to provide a comprehensive overview of the testing process over the development cycle of a product. We present a case study which shows how the metric is used at SoftwarePeople. The case study explains some features that have been developed in a Sprint in terms of feature complexity and potential test assessment difficulties and shows how PBR is calculated during the Sprint. We propose a test process assessment metric that provides insights into the Scrum testing process. However, the metric needs further evaluation considering associated resources (e.g., quality assurance engineers, the length of the Scrum cycle).
Software metrics quantify specific attributes of a software product or the process of the software development @cite_57 . A wide body of research attempts to numerically evaluate the quality characteristics of a software product. Also, software process improvement has been studied for a long time. However, to the best our knowledge, we are the first to evaluate the quality of the software testing in an Agile process.
@cite_57
2095032754 103971554 2158864412 2080521990
Research in software metrics incorporated in a framework established for software quality measurement can potentially provide significant benefits to software quality assurance programs. The research described has been conducted by General Electric Company for the Air Force Systems Command Rome Air Development Center. The problems encountered defining software quality and the approach taken to establish a framework for the measurement of software quality are described in this paper. We are developing a suite of metrics for early assessment of software reliability and to provide feedback to the developer on the quality of their testing effort. The suite consists of easy-to-measure information collected from the source code and test programs. We are studying correlation between these metrics and the reliability of the developed software. The results of an initial case study demonstrate the feasibility of the approach. Metrics will be added to or deleted from the suite based on further validation work. Given the central role that software development plays in the delivery and application of information technology, managers are increasingly focusing on process improvement in the software development area. This demand has spurred the provision of a number of new and or improved approaches to software development, with perhaps the most prominent being object-orientation (OO). In addition, the focus on process improvement has increased the demand for software measures, or metrics with which to manage the process. The need for such metrics is particularly acute when an organization is adopting a new technology for which established practices have yet to be developed. This research addresses these needs through the development and implementation of a new suite of metrics for OO design. Metrics developed in previous research, while contributing to the field's understanding of software development processes, have generally been subject to serious criticisms, including the lack of a theoretical base. Following Wand and Weber (1989), the theoretical base chosen for the metrics was the ontology of Bunge (1977). Six design metrics are developed, and then analytically evaluated against Weyuker's (1988) proposed set of measurement principles. An automated data collection tool was then developed and implemented to collect an empirical sample of these metrics at two field sites in order to demonstrate their feasibility and suggest ways in which managers may use these metrics for process improvement. > The selection of software metrics for building software quality prediction models is a search-based software engineering problem. An exhaustive search for such metrics is usually not feasible due to limited project resources, especially if the number of available metrics is large. Defect prediction models are necessary in aiding project managers for better utilizing valuable project resources for software quality improvement. The efficacy and usefulness of a fault-proneness prediction model is only as good as the quality of the software measurement data. This study focuses on the problem of attribute selection in the context of software quality estimation. A comparative investigation is presented for evaluating our proposed hybrid attribute selection approach, in which feature ranking is first used to reduce the search space, followed by a feature subset selection. A total of seven different feature ranking techniques are evaluated, while four different feature subset selection approaches are considered. The models are trained using five commonly used classification algorithms. The case study is based on software metrics and defect data collected from multiple releases of a large real-world software system. The results demonstrate that while some feature ranking techniques performed similarly, the automatic hybrid search algorithm performed the best among the feature subset selection methods. Moreover, performances of the defect prediction models either improved or remained unchanged when over 85were eliminated. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.