Performance measures for supporting project manager decisions

Software measurement is a crucial technology along the software development process, and notably for project management. Decision-making in project management requires in fact, accurate estimations and the support of metrics to monitor and control the varying factors affecting the development process. Managers must make reliable schedule predictions and optimize personnel utilization. They therefore must be able to dynamically evaluate whether the resources assigned to a job are sufficient and whether the organization structure is adequate to meet the scheduled deadlines. To support managers in these tasks, we propose a method called Propean (for PROject PErformance ANalysis) based on the combination of classical performance engineering techniques and the Unified Modelling Language (UML). The combined application of these disciplines guarantees on one hand, a validated approach for modelling and estimating the ‘Quality of Service’ parameters when they come to the development process. Performance engineering techniques are in fact based on rigorous mathematical formalisms such as queueing networks, stochastic Petri nets and Markov models. On the other hand, the adoption of UML provides managers with an easy-to-use front-end representation of the process closer to the design notations they routinely employ. To illustrate Propean application, in this article, we model the case of a manager who must decide a release date for a product undergoing the testing phase. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Acm Sigsoft,et al.  Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Software and Performance, WOSP 2005, Palma, Illes Balears, Spain, July 12-14, 2005 , 2005, WOSP.

[2]  Josef Kallrath,et al.  Solving Planning and Design Problems in the Process Industry Using Mixed Integer and Global Optimization , 2005, Ann. Oper. Res..

[3]  Eda Marchetti,et al.  Real-time UML-based performance engineering to aid manager's decisions in multi-project planning , 2002, WOSP '02.

[4]  Edward D. Lazowska,et al.  Quantitative system performance - computer system analysis using queueing network models , 1983, Int. CMG Conference.

[5]  Vittorio Cortellessa,et al.  PRIMA-UML: a performance validation incremental methodology on early UML diagrams , 2002, Sci. Comput. Program..

[6]  Rob Pooley,et al.  Software engineering and performance: a roadmap , 2000, ICSE '00.

[7]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The unified modeling language reference manual , 2010 .

[8]  Stephen C. Graves,et al.  Technology portfolio management: optimizing interdependent projects over multiple time periods , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[9]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[10]  Bran Selic,et al.  Response to the omg rfp for schedulability , 2001 .

[11]  Charles H. Fine,et al.  A method for systems design using precedence relationships: an application to automotive brake systems , 1990 .

[12]  Paul S. Adler,et al.  From project to process management: an empirically-based framework for analyzing product development time , 1995 .

[13]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  Performance Engineering of Software Systems , 1990, SIGMETRICS Perform. Evaluation Rev..

[14]  John Crocker Project Management: Methods and Studies , 1986 .

[15]  Pamela Samuelson Reverse-engineering someone else's software: is it legal? , 1990, IEEE Software.

[16]  Cem Kaner,et al.  Testing Computer Software , 1988 .

[17]  Dorina C. Petriu,et al.  Applying the UML Performance Profile: Graph Grammar-Based Derivation of LQN Models from UML Specifications , 2002, Computer Performance Evaluation / TOOLS.

[18]  KrishnanV.,et al.  Product Development Decisions , 2001 .

[19]  Avraham Shtub,et al.  Managing Stochastic, Finite Capacity, Multi-Project Systems through the Cross-Entropy Methodology , 2005, Ann. Oper. Res..

[20]  Ikujiro Nonaka,et al.  Managing the new product development process , 1985 .

[21]  P. Krutchen,et al.  The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction , 2000 .

[22]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Operations management and reengineering , 1998 .

[23]  Ramkumar Ramaswamy,et al.  How to staff business-critical maintenance projects , 2000, IEEE Software.

[24]  Giuliano Antoniol,et al.  Assessing staffing needs for a software maintenance project through queuing simulation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[25]  Ramon Pascual,et al.  PROMAN, planning, production management and control system with intelligent interfaces and advanced forecast , 2001, ETFA 2001. 8th International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation. Proceedings (Cat. No.01TH8597).

[26]  I. Nonaka,et al.  Managing the new product development process , 1985 .

[27]  James Miller,et al.  Multi-Project Management in Software Engineering Using Simulation Modelling , 2004, Software Quality Journal.

[28]  Gideon Weiss,et al.  Stochastic bounds on distributions of optimal value functions with applications to pert, network flows and reliability , 1984, Oper. Res..

[29]  Robert P. Smith,et al.  The historical roots of concurrent engineering fundamentals , 1997 .

[30]  Vidyadhar G. Kulkarni,et al.  Markov and Markov-Regenerative pert Networks , 1986, Oper. Res..

[31]  Stephen S. Lavenberg,et al.  Computer Performance Modeling Handbook , 1983, Int. CMG Conference.