Q-Rapids is still producing papers

After two years since the Q-Rapids project (H2020) finised on October 2019, we finally get published one of the systematic mappings conducted during the project. We have now published our study on quality related metrics and indicators for monitoring Agile development processes.

Quality measurement in agile and rapid software development: A systematic mapping

Lidia López, Xavier Burgués, Silverio Martínez-Fernández, Anna Maria Vollmer, Woubshet Behutiye, Pertti Karhapää, Xavier Franch, Pilar Rodríguez, Markku Oivo

Abstract. Context: In despite of agile and rapid software development (ARSD) being researched and applied extensively, managing quality requirements (QRs) are still challenging. As ARSD processes produce a large amount of data, measurement has become a strategy to facilitate QR management. Objective: This study aims to survey the literature related to QR management through metrics in ARSD, focusing on: bibliometrics, QR metrics, and quality-related indicators used in quality management. Methods: The study design includes the definition of research questions, selection criteria, and snowballing as search strategy. Results: We selected 61 primary studies (2001–2019). Despite a large body of knowledge and standards, there is no consensus regarding QR measurement. Terminology is varying as are the measuring models. However, seemingly different measurement models do contain similarities. Conclusion: The industrial relevance of the primary studies shows that practitioners have a need to improve quality measurement. Our collection of measures and data sources can serve as a starting point for practitioners to include quality measurement into their decision-making processes. Researchers could benefit from the identified similarities to start building a common framework for quality measurement. In addition, this could help researchers identify what quality aspects need more focus, e.g., security and usability that have surprisingly few metrics reported

 

Link to the Open Access paper

My first SMS in the IST (IF 2018: 2.921 - Q1 in SE)

A bunch of letters and numbers only understandable for some of us :D

For the researchers conducting Systematic Mapping Studies (SMS) and Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR), they understand the work behind an SMS or SLR publication. Nine researchers from three institutions working during almost three years conducting the study and preparing the paper. After all this time, our paper is already in press (since November 12th) in the Information and Software Technology journal (IF 2018: 2.921).

Management of quality requirements in agile and rapid software development: A systematic mapping study

Woubshet Behutiye, Pertti Karhapää, Lidia López, Xavier Burgués, Silverio Martínez-Fernández, Anna MariaVollmer, Pilar Rodríguez, Xavier Franch, and Markku Oivo

Abstract. Context. Quality requirements (QRs) describe the desired quality of software, and they play an important role in the success of software projects. In agile software development (ASD), QRs are often ill-defined and not well addressed due to the focus on quickly delivering functionality. Rapid software development (RSD) approaches (e.g., continuous delivery and continuous deployment), which shorten delivery times, are more prone to neglect QRs. Despite the significance of QRs in both ASD and RSD, there is limited synthesized knowledge on their management in those approaches. Objective. This study aims to synthesize state-of-the-art knowledge about QR management in ASD and RSD, focusing on three aspects: bibliometric, strategies, and challenges. Research method. Using a systematic mapping study with a snowballing search strategy, we identified and structured the literature on QR management in ASD and RSD. Results. We found 156 primary studies: 106 are empirical studies, 16 are experience reports, and 34 are theoretical studies. Security and performance were the most commonly reported QR types. We identified various QR management strategies: 74 practices, 43 methods, 13 models, 12 frameworks, 11 advices, 10 tools, and 7 guidelines. Additionally, we identified 18 categories and 4 non-recurring challenges of managing QRs. The limited ability of ASD to handle QRs, time constraints due to short iteration cycles, limitations regarding the testing of QRs and neglect of QRs were the top categories of challenges. Conclusion. Management of QRs is significant in ASD and is becoming important in RSD. This study identified research gaps, such as the need for more tools and guidelines, lightweight QR management strategies that fit short iteration cycles, investigations of the link between QRs challenges and technical debt, and extension of empirical validation of existing strategies to a wider context. It also synthesizes QR management strategies and challenges, which may be useful for practitioners.

Paper accepted 1st International Workshop on Quality Requirements in Agile Projects (QuaRAP 2018)

How Practitioners Manage Quality Requirements in Rapid Software Development: A Survey

Lidia López, Jari Partanen, Pilar Rodríguez, Silverio Martínez-Fernández

Abstract. Software quality is an essential competitive factor for the success of software companies today. Increasing software quality levels of software products and services requires an adequate integration of quality requirements (QRs) in the software life-cycle, which is still scarcely supported in current rapid software development (RSD) approaches. One of the goals of the Q-Rapids (Quality-aware Rapid Software Development) approach is to provide tool support to decision-makers for QRs management in RSD. As an initial step, we conducted a survey to explore how software development organizations using RSD manage QRs in their development process. The survey focuses on: (a) how data is gathered for assessing quality, (b) how QRs are managed, and (c) the considered QRs in their products. We received 30 answers, from these answers we can conclude that most of the companies gather data both automatically and manually for monitoring quality; QRs are managed together with functional requirements, sometimes or very often functionality gets priority over quality; and, the most reported QRs are reliability, performance, and security.

If you have experience developing in agile/rapid developments, you can help us answering the survey or helping us in its dissemination:

http://www.essi.upc.edu/~e-survey/index.php?sid=38773&lang=en

Co-located to 26th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2018).

Paper accepted at the CAiSE Forum 2018

Q-Rapids Tool Prototype: Supporting Decision-Makers in Managing Quality in Rapid Software Development

Lidia López, Silverio Martínez-Fernández, Cristina Gómez, Michał Choraś, Rafał Kozik, Liliana Guzmán, Anna Maria Vollmer, Xavier Franch, Andreas Jedlitschka

Abstract. Software quality is an essential competitive factor for the success of software companies today. Increasing the software quality levels of software products and services requires an adequate integration of quality requirements (QRs) in the software life-cycle, which is still scarcely supported in current rapid software development (RSD) approaches. One of the goals of the Q-Rapids (Quality-aware Rapid Software Development) method is providing tool support to decision-makers for QR management in RSD. The Q-Rapids method is based on gathering data from several and heterogeneous sources, to be aggregated into quality-related strategic indicators (e.g., customer satisfaction, product quality) and presented to decision-makers using a highly informative dashboard. The current release of Q-Rapids Tool provides four sets of functionality: (1) data gathering from source tools (e.g. GitLab, Jira, SonarQube, and Jenkins), (2) aggregation of data into three levels of abstraction (metrics, product/process factors, and strategic indicators), (3) visualization of the aggregated data, and (4) navigation through the aggregated data. The tool  has been evaluated by four European companies that follow RSD processes.