CFP last date
20 December 2024
Call for Paper
January Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming January edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 December 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Improved Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm with Self-Adaptive Shuffling for Fuzzy Logic PD+G Controller Optimization in Robotic Manipulators

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

Transforming an Organisational Outcomes to Software Measurement Programs

by Kaenchan Thammarak, Sarun Intakosum
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 71 - Number 24
Year of Publication: 2013
Authors: Kaenchan Thammarak, Sarun Intakosum
10.5120/12690-9456

Kaenchan Thammarak, Sarun Intakosum . Transforming an Organisational Outcomes to Software Measurement Programs. International Journal of Computer Applications. 71, 24 ( June 2013), 18-25. DOI=10.5120/12690-9456

@article{ 10.5120/12690-9456,
author = { Kaenchan Thammarak, Sarun Intakosum },
title = { Transforming an Organisational Outcomes to Software Measurement Programs },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { June 2013 },
volume = { 71 },
number = { 24 },
month = { June },
year = { 2013 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 18-25 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume71/number24/12690-9456/ },
doi = { 10.5120/12690-9456 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-06T21:36:32.259818+05:30
%A Kaenchan Thammarak
%A Sarun Intakosum
%T Transforming an Organisational Outcomes to Software Measurement Programs
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 71
%N 24
%P 18-25
%D 2013
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

This paper presents a framework for transforming organizational outcomes into their related software measurement programs. The benefit of this framework is that it can continually measure how well operations or projects lead to the outcomes. The transformation framework has four parts: setting up the program, running the measurement program, analyzing the information products and using the result. The output of this framework is a measurement plan that can produce information products to support both software and organizational measurements. The framework is applied to 3 projects out of 5 projects conducted at SwE Laboratory, Walailak University, Thailand. The results are shown that the projects that use this framework are more consistent with the outcomes. The average time requires to re-run measurements are 5. 33 days decreased. In term of user satisfaction, about 73% of the laboratory members are satisfied with the framework where the rests are neutral.

References
  1. Norman E. Fenton Pfleeger. SL. 1996. "Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach" International Thomson Computer Press.
  2. Stephen G. MacDonell and Andrew R. Gray. 2001. "CHAPTER 8 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT. IEEE- Trial Version 1. 00".
  3. The Urban Institute. 2003. "Key steps in outcome management 2003 series on outcome management for nonprofit organizations". Urban Institute.
  4. ISO/IEC. 2007. ISO 15939. "Systems and software engineering measurement process". 2007
  5. CMMI Product Team. "Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM) Version 1. 1". Carnegie Mellon University. 2002.
  6. KaenchanDhammaraksa, SarunIntakosum. 2009. "Measuring size of business process from use case description". ICCSIT. 600-604.
  7. KaenchanThammarak, Saran Intakosum. 2011. "OPI model: A methodology for development metric based on outcome oriented. "Computer Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE). 337 - 342.
  8. Mascena, Jorge CláudioCordeiroPires. 2005. "A Comparative Study on Software Reuse Metrics and Economic Models from a Traceability Perspective". Information Reuse and Integration, IEEE International Conference. 72-77.
  9. Jorge Cardoso. 2006. "Process control-flow complexity metric: An empirical validation". IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC'06). 167-173.
  10. Kanjan Thammarak. 2010. "Survey Complexity Metrics for Reusable Business Process". 1st ACTIS-National Conference. 18-22.
  11. Oswaldo Gómez, Hanna Oktaba, Mario Piattini, and Félix García. 2006. "A Systematic Review Measurement in Software Engineering: State-of-the-Art in Measures". ICSOFT 2006, CCIS 10. 165–176
  12. Alain Abran, Alain April, Luigi Buglione. 2010. "Software Measurement Body of Knowledge, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering". Taylor and Francis. 1157-1178.
  13. Basili, Victor R. 2005. "Using Measurement to Build Core Competencies in Software". Seminar sponsored by Data and Analysis Center for Software.
  14. Victor Basili , Jens Heidrich , Mikael Lindvall , Jurgen Munch , Myrna Regardie , Adam Trendowicz. 2007. "GQM^+ Strategies -- Aligning Business Strategies with Software Measurement". Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 488-490.
  15. William A. Florac, Robert E. Park, Anita D. Carleton. 1997. "Practical Software Measurement: Measuring for Process Management and Improvement". Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh.
  16. Kaplan R. S. and Norton D. P. "The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance". Harvard Business Review. 1992. 71-80.
  17. Kaplan R. S. and Norton D. P. "Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets". Harvard Business Review, 82(2). 2004. 52-63.
  18. GrigoriosKyriakopoulos. "Half a century of management by objectives (MBO)- A review". African Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(5). 1772-1786. 2012.
  19. Kathe Callahan, Kathryn Kloby. "Moving Toward Outcome-Oriented Performance Measurement Systems". Managing for Performance and Results Series IBM Center for the Business of Government. 2009.
  20. Michael Totschnig, Michael Derntl, Israel Gutiérrez, JadNajjar, Roland Klemke, JorisKlerkx, Erik Duval, Franz Müller. 2010. "Repository services for outcome-based learning". Proceedings of SE@M10: Fourth International Workshop on Search and Exchange of E-le@rning Materials, volume 681. 3-12.
  21. Ju Ling Shih, Eric ZhiFeng Liu. 2010. "A Preliminary Outcome-oriented Review of Game-based Learning Research". 2010 IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning.
  22. Roger O. Smith. "OTFACT Multi-level performance-oriented software with an assistive technology outcomes assessment protocol". Journal of Technology and Disability Volume 14. 2002. 133-139.
  23. Doran, G. T. "There's a S. M. A. R. T. way to write management's goals and objectives". Management Review, Volume 70, Issue 11(AMA FORUM). 1981. 35-36.
  24. Baker, D. , Bridges, D. , Hunter, R. , Johnson, G. , Krupa, J. , Murphy, J. and Sorenson, K. 2002. Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods. Availaible on: http://emi-web. inel. gov.
  25. Bernard Wong. 2002. "The Appropriateness of Gutmans Means-End Chain Model in Software Evaluation". International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'02). 56 - 65.
  26. Tony Buzan, Barry Buzan. 2006. The mind map book. BBC Active.
  27. Richard Y. Wang, Veda C. Storey, and Christopher P. Firth. "A Framework for Analysis of Data Quality Research". IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING, VOL. 7, NO, 4. 1995. 623-640.
  28. Leo L. Pipino, Yang W. Lee, and Richard Y. Wang. "Data Quality Assessment". Communication of The ACM, vol 45. 2002. 211-21.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Organizational outcomes Software measurement program Software engineering OPI Transformation

Powered by PhDFocusTM