Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Software Process and Product Improvement: A Historical Perspective

  • Published:
Cybernetics and Systems Analysis Aims and scope

Abstract

In this paper, a historical overview of significant attempts to get over the software crisis is presented. In particular, we trace the development of lifecycle models and information systems development methodologies during the last four decades. Finally, we explore the role of measurements and outline current and future works leading to process and product improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. D. E. Avison and G. Fitzgerald, Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools, McGraw-Hill (1995).

  2. S. Barbey and A. Strohmeier, “The problematics of testing object-oriented software,” in: M. Ross, C. A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton (eds.), Second Conference on Software Quality Management (SQM'94) (Edinburgh, Scotland, UK), Vol. 2 (1994), pp. 411-426.

  3. K. Beck, Extreme Programming Explained, Software Quality Week, San Francisco (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  4. B. Beizer, Software Testing Techniques, The Coriolis Group (1990).

  5. S. Bell and T. Wood-Harper, Rapid Information Systems Development, McGraw-Hill (1992).

  6. E. Berki, E. Georgiadou, and K. Siakas, “A methodology is as strong as the user involvement it supports,” in: International Symposium of Software Engineering in Universities (ISSEU'97) (Finland) (1997).

  7. E. Berki and E. Georgiadou, “A comparison of qualitative frameworks for information systems development methodologies,” in: Proc. 12 Intern. Conf. of the Israel Society for Quality (Jerusalem, Israel) (1998). 139

  8. E. Berki, “Establishing a scientific discipline for capturing the entropy of systems process models: CDM-FILTERS (A Computational and Dynamic Metamodel as a Flexible and Integrated Language for the Testing, Expression, and Reengineering of Systems),” PhD Thesis, University of North London (2001).

  9. B. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  10. B. Boehm, “A spiral model for software development and enhancement,” Computer, Vol. 21, No. 5 (1988).

  11. F. P. Brooks, “No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering,” Computer, No. 4 (1987).

  12. A. Burr and E. Georgiadou, “Software development maturity: A comparison with other industries,” in: 5th. World Congress on Total Quality (India, New Delhi) (1995).

  13. A. Burr and M. Owen, Statistical Methods for Software Quality, International Thomson Publishing Inc. (1996).

  14. P. Checkland and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley (1990).

  15. S. R. Chidamber and C. F. Kemerer, “Towards a metrics suite for object oriented design,” in: Proc. OOPSLA'91, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 26, No. 11 (1991), p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. R. Chidamber and C. F. Kemerer, “A metrics suite for object oriented design,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. 20, No. 6, 476-491 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  17. N. I. Churcher and M. J. Shepperd, “Comments on ‘A metrics suite for object-oriented design’,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. 21, No. 3 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Dorling, “Spice: Software process improvement and capability determination,” Software Quality Journal, No. 2, 209-224 (1993).

  19. N. Fenton, Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach, Chapman & Hall (1991).

  20. N. E. Fenton, “Software measurement: A necessary scientific basis,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. 20, 199-206 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  21. N. Fenton, S. Pfleeger, and R. L. Glass, “Science and substance: A challenge to software engineers,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. 20, 86-95 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  22. N. Fenton, R. Whitty, and Y. Iizuka (eds.), Software Quality Assurance and Measurement, International Thomson Computer Press, London (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  23. N. Fenton, “The empirical basis for software engineering,” in: A. Melton (ed.), Software Measurement, International Thomson Computer Press, London (1996), pp. 197-217.

    Google Scholar 

  24. N. E. Fenton and S. L. Pfleeger, Rigorous & Practical Approach, PWS Publishing Company (1997).

  25. M. Milankovic-Atkinson, E. Georgiadou, and C. Sadler, “RETRO-Reusability, Engineering, Testing, Restructuring, and Objects,” in: 4th. Software Quality Conference'95 (Dundee, Scotland) (1995).

  26. E. Georgiadou and M. Milankovic-Atkinson, “Testing and information systems development life cycles,” in: 3rd. European Conference on Software Testing Analysis and Review (EuroSTAR'95) (London, UK) (1995).

  27. E. Georgiadou and C. Sadler, “Software quality: Myths, methods, and metrics,” in: 5th World Congress on Total Quality (New Delhi, India) (1995).

  28. E. Georgiadou and C. Sadler, “Achieving quality improvement through understanding and evaluating information systems development methodologies,” in: 3rd. Intern. Conf. on Software Quality Management (SQM'95) (Seville, Spain) (1995).

  29. E. Georgiadou and E. Berki, “Improving systems specification understandability by using a hybrid approach,” in: INSPIRE'96 Intern. Conf. (Bilbao, Spain) (1996).

  30. E. Georgiadou, T. Hy, and E. Berki, “Automated qualitative and quantitative evaluation of software methods and tools,” in: Proc. 12th Intern. Conf. of the Israel Society for Quality (Jerusalem, Israel) (1998).

  31. E. Georgiadou and M. Milankovic-Atkinson, “A formal experiment to verify Object-Oriented Metrics,” in: INSPIRE'99 (Crete, Greece) (1999).

  32. E. Georgiadou and E. Keramopoulos, “A formal experiment to establish the usability of the GOQL Graphical Query Language,” in: Proc. Software Quality Management Conf. (Loghborough, UK) (2001).

  33. M. Halstead, Elements of Software Science, Elsevier, North-Holland (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  34. B. Henderson-Sellers, “Identifying internal and external characteristics of classes likely to be useful as structured complexity metrics,” in: OO Conference, South Bank University (1994).

  35. S. M. Henry and D. G. Kafura, “Software structure metrics based on information flow,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. 7, No. 5, 510-518 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  36. M. Holcombe, “X-machines as a basis for dynamic system specification,” Software Engineering Journal, No. 3 (1988).

  37. M. Holcombe and F. Ipate, Correct Systems: Building a Business Process Solution, Springer-Verlag (1998).

  38. M. Holcombe, M. Gheorghe, and F. Macias, “Teaching XP for real: Some initial observations and plans,” (A draft paper), University of Sheffield, Department of Computer Science (2001).

  39. W. S. Humphrey, “Introduction to the personal software process SEI,” Series in Software Engineering, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Addison Wesley, Longman (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  40. W. S. Humphrey, Introduction to the Team Software Process SM, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  41. ISO9001 “Quality systems: A model for quality assurance in design/development, production, installation, and servicing,” International Organization for Standardization (1994).

  42. M. Jackson. “Problems, Descriptions, and Objects,” in: Proc. Intern. Conf. on Object Oriented Information Systems (OOIS'94), Springer Verlag (1994), pp. 25-35.

  43. J. Jarvinen, “On comparing process assessment results: BOOTSTRAP and CMM,” in: Software Quality Management (SQM94) (Edinburgh) (1994), pp 247-261.

  44. N. Jayaratna, Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies, NIMSAD: A Systemic Approach, McGraw-Hill (1994).

  45. R. E. Johnson and B. Foote, “Designing Reusable Classes,” Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, Nos. 6-7, 22-35 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  46. B. A. Kitchenham, DESMET Handbook of Data Collection and Metrication, Book 1: Software Measurement Goals, NCC Internal Project Report (1992).

  47. B. Kitchenham, L. Pickard, and S. Pfleeger, “Case studies for method and tool evaluation,” IEEE Software, No. 7, 52-62 (1995).

  48. B. Kitchenham, Software Metrics: Measurement for Software Process Improvement, NCC, Blackwell (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Y. Kondo, “Importance of employee motivation in TQM,” in: 5th World Congress on Total Quality (New Delhi) (1995), pp. 46-52.

  50. P. Kuvaja et al, Software Process Assessment and Improvement: The BOOTSTRAP Approach, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  51. P. Kuvaja, “New developments in software process improvement,” in: The SQM'99 Conference (Southampton) (1999).

  52. D. Law, Methods for Comparing Methods: Techniques in Software Development, NCC Publications (1988).

  53. D. Law and T. Naeem, “DESMET: Determining and evaluation methodology for software methods and tools,” in: Proc. BCS Conf. on CASE: Current Practice and Future Prospects, Cambridge, England (1992).

  54. N. Logothetis and H. P. Wynn, Quality Through Design: Experimental Design, Off-line Quality Control, and Taguchi's Contributions, Oxford Science Publ. (1989).

  55. M. Lorenz and J. Kidd, Object-Oriented Software Metrics, Prentice-Hall (1994).

  56. T. McCabe, “A complexity measure,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. SE-2, No. 4, 308-320 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  57. T. McCabe, C. Butler, and W. Charles, “Design complexity measurement and testing,” Commun. ACM, Vol. 32, No. 12, 1415-1424 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  58. J. D. McGregor and D. A. Sykes, Object-Oriented Software Development: Engineering Software for Reuse, Van Nostrand Reinhold (1992).

  59. W. A. Mohammed and C. J. Sadler, “Methodology evaluation: A critical survey,” in: Proc. Eurometrics'92 Conf. on Quantitative Evaluation of Software & Systems (Brussels) (1992), pp. 101-112.

  60. E. Mumford and M. Weir, Computer Systems in Work Design: The ETHICS Method, Associated Business Press (1979).

  61. E. Mumford, “Defining systems requirements to meet business needs: A case study example,” Computer Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2 (1988).

  62. M. C. Paulk, B. Curtis, and M. B. Chrissis, “Capability maturity model, Version 1.1,” IEEE Software, No. 7, 19-27 (1993).

  63. L. S. Pfleeger, Software Engineering: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall (1998). 141

  64. B. E. Polyachenko and F. I. Andon, “Instrumental complex of parallel software system development and operating environment support for distributed processing within multitransputer systems,” TRANSOFT, SIGMOD, No. 5 (1993).

  65. R. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach, McGraw-Hill, European Edition (2000).

  66. M. J. Shepperd, Foundations of Software Measurement, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, England (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  67. M. J. Shepperd, C. Schofield, and B. Kitchenham, “Effort estimation using analogy,” in: 18th IEEE Intl. Softw. Eng. Conf. (1996).

  68. R. Shevchenko and A. Doroshenko, “A time cost model for distributed objects parallel computation,” Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 18, 807-812 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  69. K. Siakas, E. Berki, E. Georgiadou, and C. Sadler, “The complete alphabet of quality software systems,” in: Proc. 7th World Congress for Total Quality Management: Total Quality Management — The Transforming Role of Quality in a Turbulent World (New Delhi, India) (1997), pp. 603-618.

  70. I. Sommerville, Software Engineering, Pearson Education (2001).

  71. J. Stapleton, “RAD,” in: SQM'95, Keynote Address (Seville) (1995).

  72. A. T. Wood-Harper, L. Antill, and D. E. Avison, Information Systems Definition: The Multiview Approach, Blackwell (1985).

  73. S. Zahran, Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success, Software Engineering Institute, SEI Series in Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, Longman, UK (1998).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing Science, Middlesex University, London, UK

    E. Georgiadou

Authors
  1. E. Georgiadou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Georgiadou, E. Software Process and Product Improvement: A Historical Perspective. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 39, 125–142 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023833428613

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023833428613

Search

Navigation