Copyright and Licensing
Articles accepted for publication will be licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA. Authors must sign a non-exclusive distribution agreement after article acceptance.
Family of Evaluation Strategies: A Practical Case for Comparing and Adopting Strengths
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24215/16666038.18.e06Keywords:
Goal, Evaluation purpose, Compare and adopt, StrategyAbstract
Companies commonly establish and pursue business goals. A goal states a purpose. In the Software Engineering literature, different evaluation purposes such as to understand, monitor, improve, control, compare and select are mentioned. Considering that these purposes share distinctive and common aspects, in the present work, we include a categorization that helps a better understanding of them. On the other hand, to reach the purpose of a goal, a suitable strategy should be chosen. A strategy describes a particular course of action by means of process and method specifications. We have envisioned different strategies for different evaluation goal purposes. Therefore, in this paper we also present some strategies, which are part of a family of strategies driven by measurement and evaluation activities. Specifically, we document evaluation strategies for the monitoring, improving, and comparing and adopting purposes. In addition, we illustrate the comparing and adopting strategy applied to four social network mobile apps.1
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
[1] Basili V., Lindvall M., Regardie M., Seaman C., Heidrich J., Jurgen M., Rombach D., Trendowicz A.: Linking Software Development and Business Strategy through Measurement, IEEE Computer, 43:(4), pp. 57–65, (2010)
[2] Becker P., Papa F., Olsina L.: Process Ontology Specification for Enhancing the Process Compliance of a Measurement and Evaluation Strategy, CLEI Electronic Journal, 18:(1), pp. 1-26, (2015)
[3] Briand L., Differding Ch., Rombach D.: Practical Guidelines for Measurement-based Process Improvement, Software Process Improvement and Practice Journal, 2:(4), pp. 253-280, (1996)
[4] Briand L., Morasca S., Basili V.: An Operational Process for Goal-driven Definition of Measures, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28:(12), pp. 1106-1125, (2002)
[5] Cedillo P., Gonzalez-Huerta J., Insfrán E., Abrahao, S.: Towards Monitoring Cloud Services Using Models@run time. In Workshop on Models@run.time, MODELS, Valencia, Spain, pp. 31-40, (2014)
[6] CMMI: Capability Maturity Model Integration, for Dev. V1.3. CMU/SEI:TR-033, (2010)
[7] Dujmovic J.: A Method for Evaluation and Selection of Complex Hardware and Software Systems. 22nd Int’l Conference for the Resource Management and Performance Evaluation of Enterprise CS. CMG 96 Proceedings, pp. 368-378, (1996)
[8] Fenton N., Pfleeger S.: Software Metric: a Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd Ed., PWS Publishing Company, (1996)
[9] Goethert W., Fisher M.: Deriving Enterprise-Based Measures Using the Balanced Scorecard and Goal-Driven Measurement Techniques, Software Engineering Measurement and Analysis Initiative, CMU/SEI-2003-TN-024, (2003)
[10] INCOSE Systems Engineering Measurement Primer: A Basic Introduction to Measurement Concepts and Use for Systems Eng., INCOSE-TP-2010-005-02, v2, (2010)
[11]Kaplan R., Norton D.: The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business Press, (1996)
[12]Olsina L., Santos L., Lew P.: Evaluating Mobileapp Usability: A Holistic Quality Approach, In: ICWE 2014, S. Casteleyn, G. Rossi, and M. Winckler (Eds.): LNCS 8541, pp. 111-129, (2014)
[13]OMG: Business Motivation Mode (BMM), V1.3, (2015)
[14]Papa M. F.: Toward the Improvement of a Measurement and Evaluation Strategy from a Comparative Study, In: Current Trends in Web
Engineering, ICWE Int’l Workshops, M. Grossniklauss and M. Wimmer (Eds.), LNCS 7703, pp. 189-203, (2012)
[15]Park R., Goethert W., Florac W.: Goal-Driven Software Measurement. A Guidebook, TR. CMU/SEI-96-HB-002, USA, (1996)
[16]PMBOK: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th Edition, (2013)
[17]Preece J., Rombach D.: A Taxonomy for Combining Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction Measurement Approaches: Towards a Common Framework. Int’l Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41:(4), pp. 553-583, (1994)
[18]Rivera B., Becker P., Olsina L.: Quality Views and Strategy Patterns for Evaluating and Improving Quality: Usability and User Experience Case Studies. In: Journal of Web Engineering, Rinton Press, USA, 15:(5&6), pp.433-464, (2016)
[19]Rivera B., Becker P., Papa F., Olsina L.: A Holistic Quality Evaluation, Selection, and Improvement Approach driven by Multilevel Goals and Strategies. CLEI Electronic Journal, 19:(3), (2016)
[20]Tebes G., Peppino D., Becker P., Papa M.F., Rivera M.B., Olsina L.: Strategy for Comparing and Adopting Strengths. In: Proceed. of XIV Workshop of SE - XXIII Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación (CACIC 2017), La Plata, Bs. As., Argentina, pp. 792-801, (2017)
[2] Becker P., Papa F., Olsina L.: Process Ontology Specification for Enhancing the Process Compliance of a Measurement and Evaluation Strategy, CLEI Electronic Journal, 18:(1), pp. 1-26, (2015)
[3] Briand L., Differding Ch., Rombach D.: Practical Guidelines for Measurement-based Process Improvement, Software Process Improvement and Practice Journal, 2:(4), pp. 253-280, (1996)
[4] Briand L., Morasca S., Basili V.: An Operational Process for Goal-driven Definition of Measures, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28:(12), pp. 1106-1125, (2002)
[5] Cedillo P., Gonzalez-Huerta J., Insfrán E., Abrahao, S.: Towards Monitoring Cloud Services Using Models@run time. In Workshop on Models@run.time, MODELS, Valencia, Spain, pp. 31-40, (2014)
[6] CMMI: Capability Maturity Model Integration, for Dev. V1.3. CMU/SEI:TR-033, (2010)
[7] Dujmovic J.: A Method for Evaluation and Selection of Complex Hardware and Software Systems. 22nd Int’l Conference for the Resource Management and Performance Evaluation of Enterprise CS. CMG 96 Proceedings, pp. 368-378, (1996)
[8] Fenton N., Pfleeger S.: Software Metric: a Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd Ed., PWS Publishing Company, (1996)
[9] Goethert W., Fisher M.: Deriving Enterprise-Based Measures Using the Balanced Scorecard and Goal-Driven Measurement Techniques, Software Engineering Measurement and Analysis Initiative, CMU/SEI-2003-TN-024, (2003)
[10] INCOSE Systems Engineering Measurement Primer: A Basic Introduction to Measurement Concepts and Use for Systems Eng., INCOSE-TP-2010-005-02, v2, (2010)
[11]Kaplan R., Norton D.: The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business Press, (1996)
[12]Olsina L., Santos L., Lew P.: Evaluating Mobileapp Usability: A Holistic Quality Approach, In: ICWE 2014, S. Casteleyn, G. Rossi, and M. Winckler (Eds.): LNCS 8541, pp. 111-129, (2014)
[13]OMG: Business Motivation Mode (BMM), V1.3, (2015)
[14]Papa M. F.: Toward the Improvement of a Measurement and Evaluation Strategy from a Comparative Study, In: Current Trends in Web
Engineering, ICWE Int’l Workshops, M. Grossniklauss and M. Wimmer (Eds.), LNCS 7703, pp. 189-203, (2012)
[15]Park R., Goethert W., Florac W.: Goal-Driven Software Measurement. A Guidebook, TR. CMU/SEI-96-HB-002, USA, (1996)
[16]PMBOK: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th Edition, (2013)
[17]Preece J., Rombach D.: A Taxonomy for Combining Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction Measurement Approaches: Towards a Common Framework. Int’l Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41:(4), pp. 553-583, (1994)
[18]Rivera B., Becker P., Olsina L.: Quality Views and Strategy Patterns for Evaluating and Improving Quality: Usability and User Experience Case Studies. In: Journal of Web Engineering, Rinton Press, USA, 15:(5&6), pp.433-464, (2016)
[19]Rivera B., Becker P., Papa F., Olsina L.: A Holistic Quality Evaluation, Selection, and Improvement Approach driven by Multilevel Goals and Strategies. CLEI Electronic Journal, 19:(3), (2016)
[20]Tebes G., Peppino D., Becker P., Papa M.F., Rivera M.B., Olsina L.: Strategy for Comparing and Adopting Strengths. In: Proceed. of XIV Workshop of SE - XXIII Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación (CACIC 2017), La Plata, Bs. As., Argentina, pp. 792-801, (2017)
Published
2018-04-25
How to Cite
Tebes, G., Peppino, D., Becker, P., Papa, M. F., Rivera, M. B., & Olsina, L. (2018). Family of Evaluation Strategies: A Practical Case for Comparing and Adopting Strengths. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 18(01), e06. https://doi.org/10.24215/16666038.18.e06
Issue
Section
Original Articles
License
