Formative Evaluation of a Tool for Managing Software Quality

Context/Background: To achieve high software quality, particularly in the context of agile software development, organizations need tools to continuously analyze software quality. Several quality management (QM) tools have been developed in recent years. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the quality of QM tools, standardized definitions of such quality, and reliable instruments for measuring it. This, in turn, impedes proper selection and improvement of QM tools. Goals: We aimed at operationalizing the quality of a research QM tool, namely the ProDebt prototype, and evaluating its quality. The goal of the ProDebt prototype is to provide practitioners with support for managing software quality and technical debt. Method: We performed interviews, workshops, and a mapping study to operationalize the quality of the ProDebt prototype and to identify reliable instruments to measure it. We designed a mixed-method study aimed at formative evaluation, i.e., at assessing the quality of the ProDebt prototype and providing guidance for its further development. Eleven practitioners from two German companies evaluated the ProDebt prototype. Results: The participants assessed the information provided by the ProDebt prototype as understandable and relevant. They considered the ProDebt prototype's functionalities as easy to use but of limited usability. They identified improvement needs, e.g., that the analysis results should be linked to other information sources. Conclusions: The evaluation design was of practical value for evaluating the ProDebt prototype considering the limited resources such as the practitioners' time. The evaluation results provided the developers of the ProDebt prototype with guidance for its further development. We conclude that it can be used and tailored for replication or evaluation of other QM tools.

[1]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[2]  Peng Liang,et al.  A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management , 2015, J. Syst. Softw..

[3]  Reinhold Plösch,et al.  Operationalised product quality models and assessment: The Quamoco approach , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[4]  Michael J. Ginzberg,et al.  Lotus Notes and collaboration: le plus c/spl cedil/a change , 1996, Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[5]  ศิวะพร ภู่พันธ์,et al.  DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING MIXED METHODS RESEARCH (2nd Edition) , 2015 .

[6]  Johnnie N. Daniel,et al.  Sampling Essentials: Practical Guidelines for Making Sampling Choices , 2011 .

[7]  Barbara Wixom,et al.  Antecedents of Information and System Quality: An Empirical Examination Within the Context of Data Warehousing , 2005, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Stefan Wagner,et al.  Software Product Quality Control , 2013, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[9]  Sabrina Marczak,et al.  A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  Jason Bennett Thatcher,et al.  Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures , 2011, TMIS.

[11]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering , 2006, ICSE.

[12]  Markus Neuhäuser,et al.  Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test , 2006 .

[13]  Lakshmi Goel,et al.  From space to place: predicting users' intentions to return to virtual worlds , 2011 .

[14]  J. Morse Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed): Mathew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. Price: $65.00 hardback, $32.00 paperback. 238 pp , 1996 .

[15]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Knowing-Why About Data Processes and Data Quality , 2004 .

[16]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[17]  Dave Thomas,et al.  Zero-Tolerance Construction , 2002, IEEE Softw..

[18]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[19]  Peng Xu,et al.  Impact of Knowledge Support on the Performance of Software Process Tailoring , 2008, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Fatemeh Zahedi,et al.  The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..