Quality measurement in agile and rapid software development: A systematic mapping
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 stu...
| Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Repository: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC |
| Language: | English |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/359546 |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/2117/359546 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111187 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Computer software -- Development Quality requirements Non-functional requirements Quality indicators Metrics Agile software development Rapid software development Programari -- Desenvolupament Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Informàtica::Enginyeria del software |
| Summary: | 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. Method: 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 with few metrics reported. |
|---|