VISION: To be ho lilll) II Iharily

recn�lniL('d "hlllll on

rek It. III of! 'jOrB tpwli!r

MISSION:

American Society for Quality

(�-��:ASQ a .. ",III

� (') Software Division

The fimdamental tenet of quality in soft­ware engineering is that quality processes lead to quality products-particularly that effective and efficient development processes lead to software products that are effective and are delivered on time and within budget. The cornerstone of that foundation is methodology, which defmes the parameters of the processes and the techniques for process management on which quality assurance depends. At mini­mum, a methodology includes a set of concepts, models, rules, and guidelines; descriptions of deliverables; valid tech­niques for development; appropriate standards and test strategies; and guide­lines for process management.

The systems development life cycle (SDLC) and its "waterfall" approach to systems development reigned supreme in the 1970s and 1980s. At a time when automating existing processes and devel­oping internal management information systems were the goals, SDLC stumbled at times, but seemed useful and adequate enough for developers to maintain their faith in methodology-enabled develop­ment. However, the 1990s presented new complexities, new paradigms, and new forces that seriously challenge our beliefs in the effectiveness of methodologies.

In the introduction to his widely used text on software engineering, software quality guru Roger Pressman refers to what he calls a three-decade-Iong "chron­ic affliction" (what others have called a

T Y

"crisis"). The affliction of which he speaks is the set of ongoing problems associated with software development. In the 1990s, information technology (ID moved to the core of the organization, becoming what is arguably the chief means (the only really effective means?) for achieving "better-faster-cheaper" everything-the universal demand in the marketplace. Because IT is now in the spotlight, the affliction seems to have worsened, or at least become acutely visi­ble, to the point where our faith in methodology per se is being shaken.

Our "faith" is that processes and their

control and management are the step­

ping stones on the path to quality.

Despite our constantly treading down

this path, however, popular estimates are

that 50% to 70% of IT projects fail. Time

and again, both old and new methodolo­

gies have proved inadequate and, in

frustration, have been pitched out the

window on the road to quality, left

behind like road kill. The passing of the

cumbersome SDLC/waterfall methodolo­

gy, which rarely worked as planned,

should be celebrated. But after this great

fall, methodology after methodology has

stepped into the arena, only to be beaten

down like gladiators to the slaughter. It is

not surprising that the newest buzz, the

so-called "light" methodology, is nearly

nonmethodology that looks a lot like fly­

ing by the seat of your pants.

(cant. on p. 3)

Renewing Your Membership: It's that time of year again­time to renew your membership. For the first time the Software Division is offering a special incentive to new and renewing members. If you renew by June 30 the Software Division will send you a link to a special reprint of a dozen arti­cles drawn from Software Quality Professional and our annual International Conference on Software Quality (ICSQ). These arti­cles cover the most challenging topicS in the certified software quality engineering (CSQE) e xam body of knowledge and include four articles each on:

• Software Quality Management

• Software Processes

• Software Metrics, Measures, and Analytical Measures

Promoting the Software Division: As you renew your own membership, think about your colleagues and friends. Whom do you know who would benefit from ASQ and Software Division membership? Do a little networking with those people; discuss the Software Division and its benefits, such as:

• Software Quality, the Software Division's newsletter, which brings you technical information on software quality related topicS and information about Software Division activities.

• Software Quality ProfeSSional, the first journal focused on you, the software quality professional.

• International Conference on Software Quality, the Software Division's annual conference brings you keynotes from the gurus of our industry, invited speakers presenting "hot top­ics" in software quality, and presentations from the people in the trenches who provide lessons learned and ideas for improvement.

• Certified Software Quality Engineer certification, a peer recognition of your knowledge and skill set.

• Members Helping Members, a fonlm where you can post your questions and get answers from other software quality professionals.

Membership can be more fun with friends. Form a reading club, and meet to discuss articles from our newsletter or journaL Form a study group and prepare together for the CSQE exam. Or take the software quality engineer quiz from the newsletter and compare answers and opinions.

It may be too late for me to provide you with an overview of this quarter's issue of S oftware Quality. With a title like "Methodology as Road Kill" leading off this issue of the newsletter, my column is probably not your first stop. Nev ertheless, "Methodology as Road Kill" is an interesting look at the accom­plishments (which are too often called "failures") of the profession and the pressures that influence their development. Please remem-

2

ber that your comments and opinions on tIns fundamental concept of software engineering are welcomed and invited.

Linda \Vestfall has contributed another software quality neering quiz. I've received a lot of favorable e-mail o n this addition to the newsletter. In addition. I've received a number of excellent questions about the series. For those who wondel'ed why Linda's questions don't come from "real" past CSQE exams, Doug Hamilton, chair of the Software Division Certification Committee, provides an answer. "Items that were on old exams are returned to the database and could end up on a future exam. Once the body of knowledge is redone, we will go through the database and get rid of questions that are not relevant. We could use those, but think it would be misleading since we are getting rid of them as no longer valid."

Other features in this issue include Mark Paulk's article on "SPI for Productivity and Cost Cutting" which addresses the issue of whether or not CMM can be used for anything other than improving quality. \Ve have an article on CMMI by Dave Zubrow addressing the measurement and analysis process. That said, maybe "methodology" really isn't "road kill" after all. It might be like the deer that hit the driver's side back door of my car as I was driving down the interstate. In the real' view mirror I saw him somersault and land in a heap in the emergency lane. As I stopped to inspect $3400 worth of damage, the deer got up and walked away, apparently uninjured, and maybe a little smarter.

I hope you had as much fun at in Charlotte as I did. We had more people take the CSQE exam that was offered on May 6. As always, the topics were plentiful and exciting.

The process of updating the Certified Software Quality Engineer exam is in full swing. On November 10-11, 2000, a Job Analysis Workshop was held in Milwaukee. This workshop updated the body of knowledge (BOK) for the exam. The updat­ed BOK has been sent to more practitioners for review, input, and final revision.

A workshop was held in May 2001 at the new ASQ headquar­ters in Milwaukee to determine the test specifications.

On behalf of the ASQ Certification Department, I would like to thank the people who have volunteered their time to the CSQE exam. The input from these knowledge experts has been very valuable. If you have your CSQE certification and would like to volunteer for future exam development workshops, please contact Mary Martin at mmartin@asq.org.

Watch this column in future newsletters for additional activi­ties on the CSQE revisions.

Plan now to take the CSQE exam. The schedule is: Exam Date Registration Deadline December I, 2001 October 5,2001 June 1� 2002 April 5, 2002 December 7, 2002 October 4, 2002

Spring 2001 !SOFTWARE QUALITY

)

During the past decade, three major forces have led the assault and eroded our faith in quality assurance as embod­ied in methodology: the growth of high-cost, enterprisewide integrated sys­t ems-with too many ending a s high-profile spectacular failures; the chal­l e nge of process management in o bject-oriented technologies; and the time factor (speed to market and speed in the introduction of new technologies) in software development.

Failure, Spectacular Failure Despite investments in software engi­

neering, management frameworks, and development methodologies, failures still litter the IT landscape. Not surprisingly, the larger the project, the more potential there is for spectacular failure. The irony is that the larger and more complex the project, the more developers need to rely on methodology, yet its potential for effectiveness seems less and less likely.

A r ecent study conducted by Computerworld magazine examined mul­timillion dollar IT implementation failures and identified a "top 10 disasters" list. All

these IT fiascos are credited with having a severe negative impact on the profitabili­ty of the organizations involved, a number of them in the $100 million plus range. Systems integration efforts, of various types, dominate the list.

In the past 10 years, the pressure to integrate existing processes and systems (rather than building new ones) or to implement packaged software (rather than developing in-house versions) has grown tremendously. Integration is the f oundation for e-business. While the promise of client-server technologies drove many companies to retire their mainframes and implement client-server architectures in the early 1990s, it was not the fmancial success that was hoped for, and concerns about return on investment, the growth of Internet technologies, and the need to demonstrate business value for IT, have spurred efforts to fit together that which previously had not fit.

Enterprise integration applications, in the form of enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship manage­ment (CRM), and supply chain management (SCM), are currently hot items on the wish lists of CEOs and CIOs.

SOFTWARE QUALITY/Spring 2001

It is both enlightening and flightening to realize that five of the failures on the list involve the implementation of the most mature of these applications, ERP. That there is a se110US problem is underlined by numerous reports. The Boston ConSUlting Group, for example, in a sur­vey of more than 100 CEOs and CIOs involved in en terpr isewide systems inlplementations, reported that only 33% of projects were viewed as "positive" in terms of value creation, cost effective­ness, and financial impact.

A total of the 10 projects on the list involve systems integration. In addition to the five enterprise application efforts, one involves a more traditional integra­tion effort-the merging of two corporation s in similar businesses. Another involves the integration of sys­tems in a sophisticated infor matio n exchange between complementary com­panies in the travel services industry.

More of these spectacular failures are surely around t h e next IT corner. Companies are seeking competitive advantage through interorganizational systems such as SCM, and will be forming e-business partnerships at an increased pace. Future SCM and CRM systems development projects may well make it onto the disaster lists of this decade. Also, because of the continued attractive­ness of combining information systems to reduce costs, mergers will probably increase in pace.

The evidence of the spectacular fail­ures in the 1990s cannot help but chip away at our faith in methodology, There are many reasons why these efforts may have failed. But, whatever those chal­lenges, methodology was not sufficient to overcome them. Where are the effective methodologies that are sufficiently devel­oped, sufficiently proven, and sufficiently scaleable to handle quality assurance for these complex integration systems?

Methodology and Objects Another assault on our faith i n

methodology comes i n the development of object-oriented (00) technologies and the new paradigms for process manage­ment that they demand. 00 development is powerful for its capability to provide flexible, adaptable, and scalable systems, and therefore has high potential to create successful applications. Comparisons of 00 and traditional methodologies have often concluded that 00 analysis and design represent a radical change over tra­ditional process-oriented methodologies.

A major strength of 00 lies in the con­cept of an object itself, which is made up of components of encapsulated data and processes that are the basic building blocks of 00 systems. Another key strength is that design and development in the 00 environment is highly integrat­ed and iterative, which probably more closely matches how systems are devel­oped than the SOLC/waterfall modeL These two wonderful features form the core of the challenge to methodology. Not only are 00 concepts difficult to grasp, but they also play havoc with tradi­tional methods of process management. Ideally, 00 systems are more assembled than developed. In tact, as the o bject library is built over time, less and less of a project involves coding and more and more of it involves scanning for objects and adapting and assembling them into a system. This reusability of code enables the chief benefits of speed and accuracy in development.

The highly iterative nature of 00 development challenges methodology via project management because project phases are nearly impossible to identify let alone track and manage. Threads of w ork move through analysis, general design, specific deSign, and assembly­not in a linear fashion, but repetitively and multidirectionally as needed, creat­ing a blur of activity. You can know in what direction a person or team is going, but not exactly where they are in the process.

This begs the next question: Is methodology sufficiently developed and adequately proven to handle the rapid iteration inherent in 00 development? The object paradigm has worked well for building user interfaces, telecommunica­tions networ ks, and cl ient-server software, and will be a paradigm that will gain wider adoption in information sys­tems. In response, dozens of 00 analYSis and design methodologies, have been spawned. The Cetus Links Web site main­tains l inks to thousands of pages of information on 00 c omponents and techniques and has information links for more than 50 methodologies.

The sheer numbers of these proposed methodologies, and the failure to uncov­er, prove, and settle on the best few, underlie the uneasiness with methodolo­gy in this arena. Oh, for something half as rock-solid as the SDLC!

(COllt. on p. 4)

3

No Time for Methodology? \Vhen considering the assault on methodology, time comes

into play in two important ways. First of all, the pace of change in information technology strains at the very concept of tried and true methodology. A useful methodology is developed only after systems have been implemented, both successfully and unsuccessfully, and successful behaviors are identified. It took a large body of knowledge and practice, for example, before the object-oriented paradigm spawned the set of methodologies that now vie for our attention. As the pace of introduction of new technologies and paradigms increases, the developers will find more situations where methodologies have not yet been devel­oped and proven. Methodology, per se, just cannot keep up with the rapid pace.

Second, IT, in its new role as chief enabler of better-faster­cheaper for the organization, is faced directly with the time constraint in delivering competitive advantage. In e-business, especially in e-commerce, a critical success factor for competi­tive edge is being first to market with new products and processes and the technologies that support them. Speed is king! In this environment, all processes are challenged. Even in environments where time isn't a critical factor, methodology remains suspect among too many developers and users as overly ligorous, overly bureaucratic, and overly burdensome. That per­spective is heralded and nurtured in the time-pressured marketplace.

So·called "light" methodologies are an attempt to respond to the rapid pace of IT and strategic IT development. Kent Beck has popularized the concept with his own approach called "extreme programming." Martin Fowler describes these method­ologies as "adaptive rather than predictive" and "people-oriented rather than process-oriented.» These approaches are lean and contingency sensitive. To some extent they replace rules with roles-that is, requiring participation by developers and users "doing" development together. They are very light on process definition and documentation and prescribe just enough plan­ning, designing, specifying, and controlling as is sufficient to deliver a quality product. In fact, Fowler warns developers to be "wary" of applying a traditional engineering metaphor to build­ing software because of profound differences between the two disciplines.

Conclusion

As software quality profeSSionals we have put our faith in methodology. Serious questions about that faith continue to come to light. Is methodology adequately addressing enterprise integration applications that are at the core of e-business? Can it adequately handle the management of blurred processes in object-oriented systems? Can it successfully meet the tests of compressed time? Methodology has served us in the past. How will it withstand the assault of the past decade and continue to serve us into the future?

References

18,536 Links on Obj ects and Components. Web site: www.cetus-links.org .

Beck, K. eXtr e me Program ming eXplained: Embrac e Change. Addison-Wesley 1999.

4

Capper, N.P., and R.]. Colgate. "The Impact of Object­Oriented Technology on Software Quality." IBil1 Systems

journal, January 1994. pp.131-158. Dickel, K. and H. Sirkin. "Getting Value From Enterprise

Initiatives: A Survey of Executives, Boston Consulting Group, 2000." Available at: w"TW.bcg.com .

Fowler, M. "Put Your Process on a Diet." So ftware Develop ment, December 2000: pp. 32-36.

Nash, K., "Companies Don't Learn From Previous IT Snafus." Computerworld, October 30, 2000: pp.32-33.

Pressman, R. S. Softwm'e Engineering: A Practitioner's Appl'Oach. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1997.

Voegtli, C. "Getting Relevant to Get Results." 1998. Available at www.projectconnections.com.

Yourdon, E. "The 'Light' Touch." C omputerworld, September 18, 2000: p. 44.

John Mendonca, CSQE, is an assistant professor' in the School of Technology, Purdue University. He can be reached at

jamendonca@tech.purdue.edu , Robert Lineberger is an analyst/programmer for Purdue

University and a graduate stude nt i n the Schoo l of Technology. He can be reached at robline@p ul'due.edu,

A question I have heard repeatedly in recent months is whether the Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM)� can be used for cutting costs. The implication behind the question USll­ally is that "quality" is the target of the CMM users, but our business objective is different; therefore, the CMM is not appro­priate for our needs.

This is a general question that can be asked of any model or standard for process improvement. I believe that an emphasis on Big Q quality, which includes factors other than just defect densi­ty, is an integral part of any successful process improvement program. Software process improvement, whether CMM-based or not, should focus 011 achieving the business objectives of the organization. If those organizations have productivity or cost cut­ting as their top priority, then models such as the CMM can provide a useful framework for achieving that business objective.

Unfortunately few of the process improvement models and standards available provide direct guidance on the implications of such an objective. The classic Deming chain reaction suggests that higher quality leads to less rework and shorter cycle times, which in turn leads to more satisfied customers. How to achieve this result and how to improve productivity and cost as quality attributes of our software projects, is left as an exercise for the reader.

Consider the following observations, inspired b y t he Software CMM.

Requirements management. Accept the fact up front that cus­tomer requirements will change. Even if the customer knows exactly what he or she wants today (a rare occurrence), the operational environment will frequently change, and the

Spring 2001 /SOFlWARE QUALITY

( ) \.

product must evolve. Cut costs by proactively accepting

change from the beginning,

• Software project planning. Pick an evolutionary or incremen­tal life cycle, Actively involve the customer and end user (who may be different entities) with evolving the reqUirements. One of the crucial success factors for extreme programming

(XP) and similar lightweight processes is building the product in small increments and keeping a shippable version Remember that 80% of the functionality will probably come from 20% of the work If you want to minimize cost, be pre­pared to declare success between the 20% and 100% points, Once the critical functionality is in place, ask whether the remaining features are important and useful or just gold plat­

ing. Realistic plans may indicate the project will take much longer than the customer finds acceptable-but ignorance doesn't solve the problem, it just exacerbates it. An incremen­tal life cycle provides much better control of the project and an opportunity for mutually beneficial negotiation.

• Software project tracking and oversight. Keep an eye on rework. It's cheaper to fix errors that are caught earlier in the life cycle. Particularly for this kind of life cycle, make sure the requirements you're working on first are really the most imp011ant ones to address first.

• Peer reviews. Install some form of peer review for require­ments analysis, design, code, and testing-the payback will

make it worthwhile. Inspections are undoubtedly the most effective form of peer but they require a significant amount of infrastructure in the form of training, bug tracking

tools, etc. XP advocates pair programming, which can be considered a f01111 of ongoing peer review. This is a "pay me

now or pay me (more) later" decision.

• Software quality assurance. Product aSSUl'ance can be embed­ded in yOUl' process, if you have a well-defined process (this is a typical high-maturity but process assurance is a worthwhile overhead expense. Consciously velifying that the project is doing what it said it would do prevents nasty, last­

minute surprises ... which can be quite costly.

• Software configUl'ation management. Investing in basic SCM tools is fundamental. Some of the SCM functions, such as change control, can be e mbedded in the development process. For example, if you're using the XP strategy of fre­

quent small increments being delivered to the customer

based on "stories" (user scenarios), then the customer may be acting as the de facto change control board ... and the

choice of life cycle drives tlus pal1 of the project's plan for

SCM.

• Training program. Give people the skills they need to do their work. If you think training is too costly, just wait until

you pay the rework bill for the work done by unqualified people.

• Integrated software management, Don't reinvent the wheel. Take advantage of tools and resources built by the organiza« tion and/or other projects. This is the process side of "design for reuse," and reusable components will be cheaper in the long mn.

• Software product engineering. Make tradeoff decisions for cost vs. quality that make sense in your business environ­ment. The Software CMM does not say that all defects have to

SOFTWARE QUALITY/Spring 2001

be fixed; you do have to decide how you are going to resolve defect issues, Deciding to ship a product with known defects

may be a legitimate business decision, but it should be an informed decision that factors in both short- and long-term impacts,

• Intergroup coordination. When commitments aren't met,

there is always a cost. Making and tracking commitments, and negotiating acceptable compromises when problems adse, is much more cost-effective than "letting the squeaky wheel get

the grease."

The aforementioned observations suggest how the CMM can be used as part of an improvement program odented toward cut­ting costs. Cost cutting frequently involves other steps, such as layoffs and salary reductions, which may be counter-productive

in the long term. Implementing processes that factor in cost as a quality attribute seems a much more proactive strategy.

The division's membership in the U.S. TAG for ISO/lEC

JTCl/SC7 means we have an opportunity to contribute to the work of a new working group on software quality standards that

includes revision of ISO 9000-3 as well as standards related to product quality characteristics and metrics.

If you have not already contacted me about your interest in this

work, please do so at softqual@mindspring.com or 706-565-9468. By the time this gets published, we should have a draft of the

ISO 9000-3 revision in hand for substantive comment. A number of division members who have previously contacted me with

their interest in tIus work have already supplied many pages of comments on the first, very rough, draft of the document. I will be glad to add others who have the time to review and provide

comments on this and other software quality standards that corne before us.

You should also know that the division is, through individual

participation, involved with other standards development bod­ies, such as the IEEE Software Engineering Standards Committee, to help with standards development/review.

BY THERESA

I enjoyed meeting all the Software Division members who

carne by to visit us at the division booth. I know many of you took advantage of the special offerings of all ASQ certification

exams, including the CSQE exam. Planning is progressing for the

Software Division's 11th International Conference on Software Quality (1UCSQ). llICSQ is scheduled for October 22-24 at the

Sheraton Station Square in Pittsburgh, PA. David Zubrow, llICSQ conference chair, is actively negotiating with potential keynote

presenters and is pulling together a technical and tutorial pro-

(COllt. on p. 6)

5

gram that promises to be one of our best ever. \Vle invite you to be a part of this exciting conference. The October Software Division quarterly council meeting is scheduled for Sunday, October 21, at the Sheraton Station Square, as is a special offering of the CSQE exam. Please contact ASQ headquarters for more infoll11ation regarding the October exam special offerings.

BVTAZ DAUG

The circulation of the journal reached an all-time high count of more than 3,500 subscribers, making its second-year average a 58% increase over its first year. This growth is particularly signill­cant when contrasted with the other journals published or co-published by the Society: In each case, their most recent cir­culation is down from the previous year, roughly following the trend of declining overall Society membership.

Submissions received in the year 2000 were double the num­ber that we averaged in each of the first three years of accepting manuscripts. We have published material based on presentations at several technical conferences (suitably revised to journal stan­dards) and look to tie in with more events in the United,states Europe, and Asia.

- ,

Articles appearing in the first 10 issues of Software Quality

Professional are forming the core of two publishing projects at ASQ. First, as a membership incentive, all individuals who join the Software Division or renew their affiliation for 2001-02 are being given access to a special Web site containing peer­reviewed articles addressing the three most difficult areas of the CSQE body of knowledge. (See my column in the last newslet­ter.) Later, Quality Press intends to publish a reprint collection that will span all eight body of knowledge areas.

Special promotions have been arranged for a $10 subscrip­tion discount in conjunction with registration at recent conferences and ASQ software quality course offerings. We are also looking to expand our reader base signillcantly with possi­ble future collaborations with other major professional societies and consortia both in North America and overseas.

The journal's Web site is now at www.asq.orglpub/sqp, and is receiving about 2,500 unique visitors each month, with some 300 of those making two visits and 100 others making three or more visits during the month. A growing number of responses to the online feedback form for each issue are being received and will help in future directions for the journal.

We would be delighted to have volunteers who are interested in helping evaluate submissions or reviewing resource materials such as books, videos, or software. Please contact me at SQPEditor@aol.com .

6

The planning for the 3rd World Congress on Software Quality (3WCSQ) is still in the very early stages. At this point, we know that it will be either the second or third week of June 2005. The location will be France, and will either be held in Paris or some­where in the south of France. (Sounds fine to me!) The call for papers will not be for a long time, but there is a major planning meeting in June 2002. I will keep everyone informed through this colunm in the newsletter.

The ASQ Software Division was the organizer and host of the inaugural congress that was held in San Francisco in June 1995. The 2nd World Congress (2WCSQ) was recently held in Japan in September of last year and was organized by the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers QUSE), in cooperation with the ASQ Software Division and the European Organization for Quality (EOQ). The upcoming 3rd World Congress will be host­ed by the Europeans this time, with the same American and Japanese co-sponsors. I was the program chair for the 2WCSQ and will fill this role again for the 3WCSQ. I can be reached at ASQ3WCSQ@aol.com or pmcquaid@calpoly.edu .

ASQ Sections 502, 509, 511, ASQ Region 5, and the Software Division have joined with the Quality Assurance Association of Maryland (QAAM) and the Software Process Improvement Network (SPIN)-DC Section and Maryland Sections to form the Paltners in Excellence Group. Our mission is to provide our C0111-

munity with the information needed to achieve performance excellence in information technology.

Now in its second year, the Partners in Excellence Group is in the process of planning its Second Annual Information Technology Symposium, to be held March 20, 2002, i n Columbia, MD. Last year's symposium event was highly success­ful. An all-day event, with eight sessions and 118 attendees from the metropolitan Washington, DC/Baltimore areas, as well as

Delaware and New Jersey, exceeded all expectations. Watch for our call for papers announcement in the next bulletin. We welcome new partners who would like to support our

efforts. Time and effort is all we require. Contact Julie Ferron at Julie.Ferron@dakotaimaging.com if you are interested in having your group become a partner in excellence or to find out more about the symposium.

Spring 2001/S0FT'NARE QUALITY

'. 1

c-�)

( ) "

Software quality is a characteristic that can be theoretically measured in any phase of the development process of software. Cerino (Cerino, 1986) made a study on measuring quality in some of these phases. Our adopted approach is based on the idea that a single metric is not sufficient for evaluating a com­plex object like a software product. \Ve agree with the use of metric sets for analysing and assuring software quality, thereby establishing a homogeneous balance between the different fac­tors to be considered in the quality of the product. General definitions of software quality metrics (Zuse, 1990) are difficult

to apply in the real world and for this reason the majority of researchers in Software Engineering have abandoned the search for a single metric that encompasses all aspects of software qual­ity. A methodology must be found that overcomes these barriers and provides us with a complete vision of the results of the dif­ferent types of quality metrics.

To solve these problems, we need to find a model that pro­vides us with sufficient information on the quality state of a software product. In the beginning we chose a subset of McCall metrics which will be applied in the phases of codification, tests, and maintenance. On the other hand, we used Boehm's metrics in the initial stages of the project (planning, analysis, and design), adjusting certain indexes (Granja, 1995, and Granja, 1997) for a better estimation of their metrics in similar projects according to information obtained throughout the project. This technique was applied to small- and medium-sized projects to validate the practicality of the model.

Our model, EMSQ, is a model that analyzes, evaluates, and aids management of the development of software products. EMSQ's contains a repository with data obtained from carrying out different tests and measurements of the product for the pur­pose of making a detailed comparative report a b out its components. This analysis allows us to use and unify models with different measurements and present a graphical picture of the state of the project.

The algorithm for producing Quality Graphs would be the following:

1. Establishing objective values of maximum quality. The objective level (OL) would represent the interior concen­

tric circle of the quality graph (the best quality case). This is

SOFTWARE QUALITY/Spring 2001

what the company wanted and it is based on the average of the different metrics to achieve the desired results.

The maximum level (ML) would represent the distant edge of the graph (the worst case of quality). These values are requested by EMSQ at the beginning of its quality process.

In this example the metrics graphed include: cycolometric complexity (COMP), cost, defects per number of lines of code (D), modularity (M, based on number of modules and lines of

code in each), reusability CR, based on the percentage of envi­ronmentally independent code lines), and reliability (CONF, based on lines of code per test per defect detected).

2. Calculation of quality graphs. The distribution of the metrics in the figures is such, that the

adjacent metrics to a certain extent depend on or are influenced by the same (Drommey, 1995). This distribution exercises a cer­tain pull on the points of the image toward the real problem. If for example there is poor reusability, undoubtedly some of the adjacent values indicate that poorness either in modularity or reliability. If it occurs in reliability, this could result in a greater number of defects that could be the cause of the problem.

Application of the Model EMSQ is being applied to a project in a well-known company

with which we work in collaboration and the results of the project in question are validating the effectiveness of the model. The result of the application of EMSQ in the project can be sum­marized in one of the EMSQ graphs.

The results of applying the model to this project revealed a series of deficiencies that were manifested by the factors of quali­ty under evaluation. The graphic profuseness of a high number of

COST

CONF

R

defects and the high costs involved were indicative of a certain degree of mismanagement of the project, later confirmed in a detailed study. The causes under analySiS, illustrated in the figure, were motivated by an increase in the functionality of the project

without studying the impact. It is obvious that the increase in the functionality, which was not initially plalmed, gave rise to higher costs, while the number of defects increased because the impact on the new system was not studied beforehand. For this reason errors appeared in modules that were designed for purposes dif­ferent from what they are being used for at present.

Discussion and Conclusion The way EMSQ presents complex metric information is COll­

sidered to be particularly effective both for the project manager

7

I-

._-_._._----------_._----

and users. \'\Ie consider particularly effective the form of present­ing the information of complex metrics of the EMSQ model the same for the project manager as for the Llsers. Furthermore, the comparative analysis of different metrics proves to be extremely useful for engineers in charge of software maintenance. The model is also valid for interpreting data provided by a single met­ric, implying the results in the maintenance process.

All these ideas taken as a whole demonstrate how the model in question permits project managers to make decisions about the design of software taking as a basis the data provided and interpreted as a necessary effort for future maintenance. This model may be an additional contribution to traditional proce­dures for project development and control since it facilitates cost estimation and decision-making by ratifying the most repre­sentative aspects of product quality.

References Aksit, M., and B. Tekinerdogan. 1999. Balancing design alter­

natives using adaptability and performance factors. CTIT. University of Twente, 4.

Arifoglu, A. 1995. "Providing quality in estimating software development costs." 269-284. Software Quality .Management III vol. 1, Computational Publications.

Ba rranc a-Garcia, M.J., and J. C. Gran j a-Alvarez. 1996. "Maintainability as a key factor in maintenance productivity: a case study." Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, Monterey, CA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 87-93.

Boehm, B.W., JR. Brown, and M. Lipov. 1976. "Quantitative Evaluation of Software Quality." Proc. 2nd IntI. Conf., on Software Engineering. Long Beach, Calif. IEEE Computer Society, 10, 592-605.

Boehm, B. 1981. Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-HalL Brown, Bradley]. 1987. Assurance of Software Quality. SEI­

CM-7-1.1. U.S. Department of Defense. 7. Cerino, D.A. 1986. "Software Quality Measurement Tools and

Techniques." Proc. COMPSAC 86. \Vashington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 10. 160-167.

Drommey Geoff R. 1995. "A Model for Sofware Product Quality," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 21, no. 2, 2, 146-162.

Grady, Robert B. 1992. Practical Software Metrics for Management and Process Improvement. Prentice-Hall.

Grady, Robert B. 1994. "Successfully Applying Software Metrics." Computer, vol. 27, no. 9,9, 18-25.

Granja-Alvarez, J.C., and M.J. Barran co-Garcia. 1995. "Productive Maintainability." ACM-Software Engineering Notes, vol. 21, no. 2.

Granja-Alvarez, J.c., and M.J. Barranco-Garcia. 1997. "A Method for Estimating Maintenance Costs in a Software Project: A Case Study." J. Software il1.aintenanace: research and prac­tice, vol. 9, 161-175.

Granja-Alvarez, J.c., and A. Oller-Segura. 1998. Measuring Progress in Deploying Reusability: Generic Algorithms, Assessing the Benefits of Reusability, Proc. European Workshop of Reusability '98, 11,27-40.

Juan Carlos Granja-Alvarez holds a doctorate in computet' science from the Faculty of Ccomp.uter Science in Madrid. He

is a teacher at Granada University in research group comput-

8

er science languages and systems and software engineering. He m.ay be reacbed at jcgranja@ug1:es .

Angel Oller-Segura bas a degree in computer engineering

Jrom Granada University, and is participating in tbe project as an industrial partner. He is completing his doctorate under

tbe direction of Dr. Juan Carros Granja-Alvarez.

MEMBERS SPEAK OUT Rick Gonser sent the folloWing account oj his experiences

receiving electronic versions of Software Quality bye-mail.

Fall 2000 came through no sweat, download size -298KB. For some reason, the me as received did not have a PDF exten­sion. When I tried to open it using Microsoft Windows Explorer, I got a message saying no program associated with the file. But, knowing it was PDF, I pointed it to Acrobat 4.0, and that worked. \Vhat you might want to do is name the file, and add a note in your e-mail to open with Acrobat. Some people may not be able to open it, because of the association thing.

I sent it to the HIP LaserJet 8000, printed in three minutes. I sent it to an older HIP LaserJet 45i, but it did not have enough memory. I sent it to a really old Canon BJC-600e, and it handled it.

Rick Gonser SQA/SCM

Here's another member's viewpoint.

As a member of the Software Division I want to add my two cents worth in on this topic. I feel that those of us who are in the Software Division are probably in the software business. As such it would be reasonable to expect that we would have an active e-mail address (or at least need one). Additionally, you might expect that we would have access to the Internet (either through our business or privately).

That having been said, I feel it would be a reasonable approach to stop the hardcopy newsletter in favor of e-mailing it in PDF format plus storing copies on the Software Division's Web site. This method would relieve the division of the costs associated with production and distribution of paper copies. It would also give every member two methods of getting their hands on copies of the newsletter. Having a searchable method of getting to back issues is particularly valuable. The saving could be put to better use as you described in your article.

I would accept the creation of a mailbox on your Web site as long as it could be autoforwarded to my business address. The idea of a common mailbox that could be autoforwarded would solve my problems and let me steer mail to the mailbox of my choice, as well as give others the option of having a mailbox if they need one.

I read and enjoy the newsletter and would hate to lose track of it if hardcopy issues were no longer published.

Fred Haigh Manager, Process & Quality Acterna, Innovative Software Development Services

Spring 2001 /SOFTWARE QUALITY

! ! i

I

I !

I I

1 1 I I

I I� , .... '�I I 1_ =1 I_�

11 th International Conference on Software Quality

October 22-24, 2001 • Pittsburgh, PA Sheraton Hotel Station Square

If software quality is your business, then this conference is for you!

To pics Include: Software Qual ity Management

Software Processes

Software Project Management

Software Metrics, Measu rement, and Analytical Methods

Software I nspection, Testing, Verification, and Validation

Software Audits & Standards

Software Conf i g u ration Management

Keynote Speakers Michael Fagan

Watts Humphrey Tom McCabe

Invited Speakers Dave Card Steve Cross

Carol Dekkers Chuck Engle

Robin Goldsmith Linda Westfall William Wulf

Conference Pricing

Other software quality-related

topics i ncluding standards, qual ity

phi losophies and princip les, organizational

and interpersonal techniques, and problem­

solving tools and processes,

wi l l be explored as wel l .

Join us for p lenary sessions, technical presentations, panel dicussions, bi rds-of­

a-feather networkin g lunches, p re­

conference tutorials, as wel l as post­

conference cou rses ! !

Make sure you attend

this great conference!

$650 on or before September 3f 2001 • $700 after September 3f 2001 $650 for Software Division members only through the conference!

To register call ASQ at 800-248-1946 or 414-272-8575.

v

The 1 1 th International Conference on Software Quality will be held in Pittsburgh October 22-24, 2001 . The conference fea­tures tutorials and presentation tracks on current topics related to software quality improvement.

Watts Humphrey, Keynote Speaker Watts Humphrey is a fellow of the SEI and founder of the SEI

Process Program. His books include lvlanaging the Software Process (1989), A Discipline /01' Software Engineering (1995), Managing Technical People ( 1996) , Introduction to tbe Personal Software Process (1997), and Introduction to the Team Software Process (2000).

Humphrey holds five U.S. patents. In 1991 he served on the board of examiners for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award . He holds a bachelor ' s degree in physics from the University of Chicago, a master's degree in physics from the Illinois Institute of Technology, and a master's degree in busi­ness administration from the University of Chicago. In 1993, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronauts presented Humphrey with the Aerospace Software Engineering Award. Humphrey was awarded an honorary doctorate in software engi­neering by Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in 1 998 . In 2000 , the Watts Humphrey Software Quality Institute was named in his honor in Chennai, India, and the Boeing Company presented him with an award for leadership and innovation in software process improvement. He is one of the 10 influential men and women of software, according to the managing editor of CrossTalk magazine.

Michael Fagan, Keynote Speaker Michael Fagan (www.mfagan.com/ bio_frame.html) is princi­

pal of Michael Fagan Associates. During his development career at IBM, Fagan created the inspection process for use on his own projects. Mter leaving IBM , he created the Fagan Defect-Free process that incorporates formal process definition and rein­fo rces the continuous process improvement aspect of the inspection process.

Fagan has had 20 years of experience in IBM as a line manager of software development, engineering development, and manufac­turing . In addition, he was manager of programming methodology for IBM's DP Product Group (Worldwide); the first software senior technical staff member in IBM's T.J. Watson Research Laboratory; a member of the Corporate Technology Staff; and one of the fowlder members of the IBM Quality Institute.

In 1 979, IBM awarded him the largest individual Corporate Achievement Award for creating the Inspection Process and pro­moting its implementation in IBM ' s laboratories around the world and in industry.

Michael Fagan Associates was formed in 1 989 to teach others how to use this method successfully.

Other Conference Speakers

Invited speakers include Mark Paulk, Carol Dekkers, Dave Card, Chuck Engel, and Robin Goldsmith.

Mark Paulk, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute

Paulk has worked at the SEI since 1987, initially working with

1 0

the Software Capability Evaluation project. He has worked with the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) project since its inception and was the project leader during the development of version 1 . 1 of the Software CMM and was the product manager during the version 2 work. Paulk contributed to the initial development of ISO 1 5 504 (SPICE-S oftware Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination, a suite of international standards for software process assessment currently under development) and remains actively involved with ISO 1 5504, ISO 1 5288 (Systems Life-Cycle Processes), and I SO 1 2207 (Software Life-Cycle Processes), as well as IEEE software standards activities . Prior to joining the SEI, Mark was a senior systems analyst for System Development Corporation (later Unisys Defense Systems) at the B allistic Missile D efense Advanced Rese arch Center in Huntsville, AL. Paulk is currently working on a doctorate in industrial engineering at the University of Pittsburgh.

Carrol Dekkers, Quality plus Technologies Dekkers is president of Quality Plus Technologies, Inc. and is

a key advisor to senior management internationally in establish­ing successful software measurement and function p o int

initiatives. Her track record speaks for itself as she has been instrumental in the design and implementation of successful software measurement and function point programs in leading Fortune 500 companies. Her background also includes progres­sive experience with m a j o r engineering and system development projects (project management).

Dekkers was recently honored by ASQ as one of the 2 1 New Voices of Quality for the 21st Century. Quality Progress magazi­ine stated that they hope "readers will fmd value in considering the interplay of ideas from a selection of original thinkers who are grappling with the evolution of quality from the Industrial Age into the Information Age." Dekkers was selected from a group of more than 100 nominees representing a wide range of quality related industries. ASQ is a worldwide not-for-profit organization boasting more than 1 17,000 members worldwide and 250 sec­tions. To review the article visit the Quality Progress Web site at qualityprogress .asq.org and select Volume 33, Issue 1 .

Dave Card, Software Productivity Consortium D avid Card has b e e n named Fellow by the S o ftware

Productivity Consortium, one of the first two recipients to be so awarded under the consortium's new fellowship program. Card frrst joined the consortium in 1 997, and served as chief scientist, Quantitative Methods, prior to receiving his fellowship. Card has been instrumental in developing the consortium's Level 4 CMM support capability and continues to provide technical leadership to the consortium's measurement program. He works with the

consortium's new business, marketing, and member programs departments to familiarize current and potential members with its measurement program and help acquire new members and contracts. Card has led the consortium's move into the telecom­munications and financial services market s ; engaged the

co nsortium as a transition pa rtner in the D oD-sp onsored Practical Software Measurement project; and serves as co-editor of ISO standard 1 5939, Software Measurement Process. He actively promotes the consortium through participation in vari-

Spring 2001 /SOFTWARE QUALITY

(

\ 1

� .."

ous boards (e.g . , IEEE Software Editorial Board , Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Industry Advisory Board), con­ferences, publications, and professional society committees.

) Chuck Engle, ECC Incorporated Dr. Charles B. Engle Jr. , vice president

of Engineeting and chief technical officer, joined ECC in 1 999. Previously, Engle was vice president, North America for Q-Labs, the software engineering consultancy subsidiary of Ericsson. Engle received his bachelor's degree in computer systems from Bentley College in Massachusetts, a master's degree in computer science from Stanford University, and a doctorate in computer science fro m Polyte chnic University in Brooklyn, NY.

Robin Goldsmith, GoPro Management Robin Goldsmith, JD , is recognized

internationally as an authority on deliver­ing business value through effect ive management of the software process. Several of the world's most prestigious organizations have adopted his method­ologies for project management, software acquisition, and testing. He serves as an officer of the ASQ Boston Section.

For information on the conference, check the official conference Web site at http ://www.biz. aum.edu/tomgriffin/icsq/ l l CSQ. htm or call ASQ headquarters at 800-248- 1946.

Membership Chair Please contact Linda Westfall for infor­

mation about this opportunity to serve on the Division Council as membership chair.

Education and Training Chair Please contact Linda Westfall for infor­

mation about this opportunity to serve on the Division Council as membership chair.

Regional Councilors Region 7 and Region 1 4 co uncilor

positions are open. If you would like to represent your region, please contact Michael P. Kress, chair-elect.

SOFTWARE QUALITY/Spring 2001

Several times, while working with a client, I have discovered test automation software sitting unused on a shelf. Sometimes, a company will have invested a cons iderable amount of money on licenses and training of staff and still have nothing to show for it a few months or a year later. What goes wrong?

First, test automation is not as simple as the tool vend ors make it appear. Most tools are sold based on the ease of record and playback, and the training that the vendors offer usually covers little more. In reality, no organization can maintain a large number of tests using tills technique. Suppose that a test orga­nization has recorded 500 regression tests and that a change to the GUI is made that affects half of them. 250 tests will have to be recorded again! If time is short, it doesn't happen because even record and playback requires more effort than manual testing. So the team falls back on manual testing in order to get the job done on time.

Second, the people who are trained are usually manual testers who do not have the skills to take the automation beyond the record and playback level. Serious test automation requires software developm ent skills . Each of the three tools that I am m o s t familiar with , Mercury WinRunner, Segue SilkTest, and Rational Robot, has its own development language. Robot's language, SQA Basic is considered to be the easiest language to learn; i t is b a s e d on Basic . The WinRunner TSL language is based on C. The SilkTest language is more object ori­ented and is similar to C++.

The approach that is most successful for large regression suites is one in which the tool ' s language is used to build an interpreter, usually referred to as the test automation engine. The engine is often designed to read a comma delimited file (CSV file) created from an Excel spread­s h e e t . Th e spreadsheet can contain instructions similar to a detailed test case description. Each step in the instructions can consist of an object reference and a data item. For example, instructions for entering data into name fields could con­tain t h e tuples (FirstNam e : J o hn) ,

(Mi ddleName : \Vi Iliam), (Las tName : Smith). The engine would interpret this as: click in the object named FirstName and enter "John , " click in the object named MiddleName and enter "William," etc. There is more to it than tills, such as navigating to the correct window and so on but I hope that it makes the point.

You can see that the develop ment skills that are needed are no t trivial . Most organizations need to rely on a con­sultant to develop the engine and train in-house test automation engineers. I rec­ommend that any organization that is serious about automation hire at least two software engineers who have suffi­cient software development skills that they will be able to carry on the mainte­nance after the consultant leaves. These software engineers should be dedicated to the task of test automation.

B

Here is a cool site Deependra Moitra reported finding on the Web . It was developed recently by QAI India Ltd. and claims to be the first global virtual ecosystem for software engineering. The site name is "Software Dioxide" (Sw02). I haven't figured that one out yet.

Sw02 aspires to be a digital market­place, a clearinghouse, an exchange, and a repository of knowledge. S oftware Dioxide.com helps software engineering and management professionals. At Sw02 you can meet, learn, trade, and exchange on a neutral platform. Sw02 is organized around the following domains:

Project management Product management Knowledge management Reuse Quality assurance and models Measurement People and management Subcontracting and acquisition

T a k e a l o o k a t : www . s o ftware­dioxide . com .

1 1

Whether you are preparing for the Certified Software Quality Engineer (CSQE) examination or just testing out your knowledge of software quality engineering, why don't you sit back and let your brain do its thing. The answers can be found on p. 14 if

you need a helping hand. Note: Tbe items in this quiz are NOT from the past CSQE

examinations NOR were they created as part of the CSQE

exam development process.

1 . The process of identifying, understanding, and adapting out­s t anding practices a n d processes fr om organiza tions anywhere in the world to help your organization improve its performance is called: A. Reengineering B. Benchmarking

C. Total Quality Management D. Precision of effort

2. Which of the following defrnes the ease with which individ­ual software components can be utilized as part of other software products or systems? A. Usability B. Maintainability C. Portability D. Reusability

3. Level 3 of the Software Engineering Institute 's Capability Maturity ModelSM adds all of the following key practices EXCEPT: A. Organizational process focus

B. Software product engineering

C. Software subcontractor management D. Integrated software management

The above network is an activity online network where the

numbers on each line represent the effort estimation of each

activity in days. The nodes (circles) represent tbe events. This

network is referenced in question 4.

4 . The critical path for the above network includes events: A. 1 , 2, 4, 5, 8 B. I , 2, 3, 5, 8 C. 1 , 3, 5 , 8 D. 1 , 3, 6, 7, 8

5 . In order to determine the root cause of customer reported defects, an analysis is being done of a sample of 350 software problem reports. The type of each problem (e.g., logic error, missing requirements, data initialization error) was deter-

1 2

mined. Which of the following tools would b e the best choice for communicating the results of this study. A. Affinity diagram

B. Scatter diagram

C. Pareto chart

D. Pie chart

6. Beta testing is preformed by: A. The end users of the software

B. Software development

C. An independent verification and validation team

D. Software quality assurance

7. A product audit is being conducted to determine compliance to the organization's coding standards. Which of the follow­ing questions wo uld be approp riate for inclusion on a checklist to be used as part of this audit? A. Are the conventions for commenting the source code being

followed?

B. How are variable names selected?

C. Wha t mechanisms are used for verifying that the coding

standards are followed?

D. Do code inspections use a trained moderator?

8. The product baseline is established when: A. The system requirements are approved

B. The system requirements are allocated to the software and the

software requirements are approved

C. The software design specification has been approved

D. The software has been approved for distribution to the field

1 8th International Conference and Exposition on Testing Computer Software

Theme: Meeting the New Cha l leng es of Testing

June 1 8-22. 2001 • Washingto n , DC • Hyatt Regency (Bethesda)

(Conference: J une 1 8-22; Worksho psfTutorials: June 1 8- 1 9)

In Cooperation With:

American Society for Qual ity (ASQ) Software Divis ion • I EEE Reliabi l ity Society • Association fo r Computing Machinery (ACM) S IGSoft • Software Technology Support Center (STSC)

Co nference program by Meredith Consultants

Conference manage ment by U .S . Professional Development I nstitute

Conference Feat ures:

• Preconference Program: Two two-day wo rksh ops; eight one-day tutorials

• Six general sessions with keynote speakers

• Thirty-two concurre nt sessio ns, divided into paral lel tracks of management, automation, tech nology, requ i rements, case studies, Web and practices.

• Special Events: vendor exh ibits

• I�etworking

For additi onal i nformation pl ease contact:

USPDI , 61 2 Ethan Allen Aven ue , Su ite 1 DO, Takoma Park, M D 2091 2-5400, U SA Phone : [+1 ] 301 -270-1 033 • Fax: [+1 ] 301 -270-1 040

E- mail : ad mi n@usp d i .org (Su bject: TCS2001 )

We b: www.uspd i.org!confere nce

Spring 2001 /SOFTWARE QUALITY

{ \

(

( " ) -......... "

B ZU B R:OIj",

Recently the CMMI Project released the Capability Maturity Model 't-Integrated (CMMP�!) for Systems and Software Engineering, version 1 .02. A previous article in this newsletter described the CMMI. One new feature contained in this model is the measurement and analysis process area. "The purpose of mea­surement and analysis is to develop and sustain a measurement capability that is used to supp ort management information needs. " This purpose for measurement is broader than what's mentioned in the Software CMM® (SW-CMM) model, which pri­marily addressed measurement and analysis via the practices within the measurement and analysis common feature of the model. The scope of the measurement and analysis conunon fea­

ture was noted as the " . . . practices that are necessary to determine status related to the process. Measurements included in this com­

mon feature are used to control and improve the process. " However, measurement and analysis activities were sprinkled throughout the activities performed common feature as well.

\Vithin the model, measurement and analysis is described as a support process residing at maturity level 2 . As a support

process area, it provides " services" to other processes. "The measurement and analysis process area supports all process areas by providing practices that guide projects and organiza­

tions in aligning measurement needs and objectives with a measurement approach that will provide objective results that can be used in making informed decisions, and taking appropri­ate cOITective actions." Consistent with the goal-question-metric approach to identifying what needs to be measured and the emerging ISO standard on the software measurement process (ISO 15939), the process area assumes that information needs have been identified within other processes, whether they are project or organizational processes. It then is the job of this process area to operationally define, collect, and analyze data, and then report information back to the "calling" process.

The integration of measurement and analysis activities into project processes provides a consistent mechanism for meeting

the information needs associated with:

• Objective planning and estimating

• Tracking actual performance against established plans and objectives

• Identifying and resolving process-related issues

• Providing a basis for integrating measurement and analysis with process definition

The process area is structured around three goals:

• Align measurement and analysis activities

• Provide measurement result

• Institutionalize a managed process

The practices associated with the first goal, align measure­

ment and analysis activities, include:

• Establish measurement objectives

• Specify measures

• Specify data collection and storage procedures

• Specify analysis procedures

As can be seen, these practices really establish the plan for measurement and analysis. They address: \Vhy are we measur­ing? What are we going to measure? How a re we going to measure? And, what will be done with the data once we have them? As with most, if not all, endeavors within organizations (and life), planning is crucial if we want to achieve our goals. The goal and associated practices within the process area explic­

itly recognize this need and its importance. The practices associated with the second goal, provide mea­

surement results, include:

• Collect measurement data

Analyze measurement data

• Store data and results

• Conmumicate results

The theme of these practices is to follow through with the plan; just do it. Note, however, that the goal is to get the results of performing measurement and analysis into the hands of those

who will take action based on the results. The process area emphasizes that results mllst be communicated to those needing the information. It does no good to the organization to populate a "write-only" database.

Finally, the third goal in the process area calls for institution­alization of the measurement and analysiS process. Whereas the software CMM measurement and analysis was only a component of institutionalizing a process, within the CMMI it is a process in its own right and therefore must be institutionalized along with

the other work processes.

Activities associated with the third goal include:

• Establish an organizational policy

• Plan the process

• Provide resources

• Assign responsibility

• Train people

• Manage configurations

• Identify and involve relevant stakeholders

• Monitor and control the process

• Objectively evaluate adherence

• Review status with higher-level management

This is, perhaps, a daunting list. Upon inspection of the prac­tices, however, I think you will conclude that they are all

necessary and important.

SJ10l1MI and eMll1 Integration are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University. %CMlJ1 and Capability Maturity Model are registered in tbe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (cant. on p. 14)

SOFTWARE QUALITY/Spring 200 1 1 3

The challenges and benefits of this new CMMI process area to organizations that have been following the Software CMM are threefold. First, the model calls for a consistent measurement process or approach, at least at a high level. Furthermore, the first step is to identify the purpose and use of measurement and analysis. Second, to effectively implement measurement and analysis will require integration of measurement into the other work processes of the organization. This may be difficult, espe­cially for those organizations where measurement and analysis has been overlaid onto the work processes, rather than integrat­ed within them. To some extent this is understandable where those who generate the data are not the same as those who need to use them. Nonetheless, the CMMI Product Suite provides an impetus for this integration. Third, organizations will need to institutionalize their measurement and analysis activities. This is long overdue and will undoubtedly be difficult for organizations that have been doing measurement to "check off the box. "

If you are motivated to address this process area, I offer the following suggestions for getting stalted:

• Review and document your existing measurement and analysis activities and procedures

• Evaluate the value of your existing measurement and analysis activities

• Integrate measurement and analysis into your processes and train it

• Establish an organizational infrastructure to support measure­ment and analysis

The inclusion of this process area within the CMMI model is a valuable addition. It puts a spotlight on measurement within the software engineering industry that has been sorely needed. In the pursuit of quality and customer satisfaction, how can we deliver the right product, on time, on budget, and continue to improve if we are not measuring and analyzing our performance?

References

CMMI Product Development Team, CMMF" for Systems

Engineering/Software Engineering, version 1. 02 (CMMI-SE/Slfl,

V 1. 02) Staged R epresenta tion, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-2000-TR-028 or ESC-TR-2000-093, November 2000.

I S O/IEC 1 5 9 3 9 , Informa tion Tecbnology-So ftware

Measurem ent Process, Committee Draft, December 2000. M. C. Paulk, C. V. \Veber, B. Curtis, and M. B. Chrissis ,

Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Impro ving tb e Software Pro cess , Carnegie M ellon University, Software Engineering Institute, 1995.

1 4

1 . Answer B is correct. The first step in the benchmarking process is to determine which project, method, process, or prod­uct you want to analyze. The current practice is then baselined by identifying key performance factors and the current values of those factors. A search and analysis is then performed to deter­mine the leaders for those factors. These leaders may be other organizations within the company, other organizations in the industry, or even organizations in different industrie s . The benchmark organization is then studied. For benchmarking to be useful, the lessons learned from the study must be used to improve the current practices.

2. Answer D is correct. Reusability is the ease with which individual software components can be utilized as part of other software products or systems. Usability is the ease with which the user can interact with the software. Maintainability is the ease with which changes can be made to the software system. Portability is the ease with which a software system can be migrated from one platform to another.

3. Answer C is correct. Key process areas of level 3 include organization process focus, organization process definition, peer reviews, training program, intergroup coordination, software product engineering, and integrated software management. Software subcontractor management is a level 2 key process area.

4. Answer D is correct. The critical path is the longest path through the activity network and defines the shortest time in which that activity can be accomplished. Path D. through events 1 ,3,6,7,8 will take 1 3+7+9+5 = 34 days. Path A. through events 1 ,2,4,5,8 will take 8+7+3+8 = 26 days. Path B. through events 1 ,2 , 3 , 5 ,8 will take 8+3+ 10+8 = 29 days. Path C. through events 1 , 3 , 5,8 will take 1 3+ 1 0+8 = 3 1 days.

5. Answer C is correct. Pareto analysis is the process of ranking problems or categories based on their frequency of occurrence or the size of their impact in order to determine which of many possible opportunities to pursue first.

6. Answer A is correct. Beta testing, also called first office verification or field testing, is done by the users in the actual exe­cution environment with a completed software release. Beta testing is typically done with a limited set of customers before full general availability of the software.

7. Answer A is correct. Checklists are made up of yes or no questions that are precise , measurable , and factual like this question. Question A is appropriate for a coding standard audit checklist. Questions B & C are open-ended questions, while they are appropriate for an audit interview, they are not appro­priate for an audit checklist. Question D is not related to coding standards.

8. Answer D is correct. The product baseline, also called the production baseline, includes the configuration item, its components, units and associated documentation during the pro­duction, operations, servicing, and maintenance parts of its lifecycle . The product baseline describes the product as it is delivered to the users. One of the key characteristics of the prod-

...... \ I I

uct baseline is that changes can only be made through a formal (-"" - " '1,-_ change process. \.

Spring 2001 /SOFlWARE QUAL1TY

Fifth Annua l Practica l Software and Systems Measu reme nt Users' Group Conference As pen, Colorado • July 23-27, 2001

The PSM project announces the fifth annual conference for Practical Software and Systems Measurement A Foundation

for Objective P roject Managem ent in Aspen, CO, July 23-27, 2001 . The conference provides the op portunity for PSM

use rs and measurement practitioners to share experiences i n issue-d riven measurement and learn about changes in the

measu rement and acquisition commu nities. Attendees will also participate in p rod-

ucts and services. The conference wi l l include a PSM tutorial, user presentat ions, systems

suppl iers and measurement professionals from 000, government, and industry are encouraged to attend.

Monday. July 23 Conference Registration PSM One-Day Tutorial PSM Qualified Trainers Session

Conference Fees:

Tuesday, July 24 Confe renee Welcome User Presentations

Wednesday, J u ly 25 User Presentations Workshops Conference Dinner

For further informatio n: PSM Support Center

Thursday, J u ly 26 Workshops

Friday, July 27 Workshop Out-briefs Wrap-Up Session

Sponsored by the PSM Support Center and the

International Engineering in $575 if payment is received IJy June 23, 2001 $675 if payment is received after June 23, 2001 Mon day-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT

E-mai l : psm@pica.army.mi l

cooperation with the ASO Software Division

Web site: www.psmsc.com

Telephone: 703-979-9674 Facsim i le : 703-979-81 87

REGION 1, JOHN PUSTAVHR In March, the Software Division again co-sponsored the

Boston Quality Conference (ROSCON). The division was repre­sented by Region 1 councilor, John Pustaver, John reports that the software quality content of this annual conference has grown enormously over the past few years. Members should watch for this one-day conference next year and plan to attend. It is well worth attending and is reasonably priced. Johanna Rothman, current Boston Section chair and former BOSCON chair, has been the primary driver in the expansion of the soft­ware program and is owed many thanks by Boston area memb e rs . This year ' s c onference was chaired by Robin Goldsmith, who is also well known in software quality circles.

Eric Patel, QA manager at Nokia in Burlington, MA, has accepted the position of deputy regional councilor for Region 1 . He will b e assisting Region 1 councilor, John Pustaver, in direct­ing the activities of the Software Quality Group of New England. Together, they plan to work to enhance the group's value to members throughout New England. The first activity will be to build an improved Web site that will feature downloads of pre­sentations.

The Software Quality Group of New England was founded by John Pustaver in 1 994 as a special interest group within the Boston Computer Society. Today, the group is co-sponsored by Region I of the Software Division and by Sun Microsystems. Sun provides meeting facilities as well as refreshments for each meet­ing. Meetings are held on the second Wednesday of each month except for August.

The meetings that have been held this year included the fol­lowing speakers and topics: Mark Shelley, "Removing Defects Through Structural Analysis"; Anna Allison, "Meaningful Metrics: Is the Software Improving?" ; and Johanna Rothmann, "No More Whining: Reframing the Not Enough Problem." The February meeting consisted of a panel discussion on metrics.

For more information on the Software Quality Group of New England contact John Pustaver, pustaver@SWQuality.com .

SOFTWARE QUALITY/Spring 2001

Software DivisIon

REGION 2, JEAN BURNS Jean 1. Burns presented "The Development and

Implementation of Software Metrics for Decision Making" and M ark Crannage presented the statistical mo del u s e d (by Universal Instruments Corporation) in software metrics to two MBA classes at the State University of New York-Binghamton. Jean Burns discussed careers in software quality and explained the roles of professional organizations. Most students do not understand the wide scope of careers available with those who have software and business backgrounds.

This same presentation has been offered to the local ASQ group and wiIl likely be on the early fall agenda.

Jean Burns has responded to 1 5 requests for information from headhunters, employment organizations, etc.

REGION 6, TOM Gll..CHRIST Region 6 now has a Web site specifically designed to allow

ASQ Software Division members to see what is going on in their area. Point your browser to wwwJuigidst.com/asq6 or go to the ASQ Software Division's Web site at asq-software.org and touch "officers" and scroll down to Region 6 and my name 'Tom Gilchrist ." However, I need content! If you live within the 10 states that make up the largest ASQ region, and you know about, participate in, or are aware of quality activities, conferences, or meetings, please forward them to me. I'm looking for some "cub" reporters out there who just don't have enough to do already!

The Pacific Northwest Quality Conference (pnsqc.org) held its "Spring Workshops" Monday, May 14, 2001 , in Belle\Ttle, WA, and Tuesday, May 15 ) 2001 , in Beaverton, OR There were three workshops offered:

• "A One-Day Jump-Start for Testing Applications on the Web"

• "System Test Automation Architectures"

• "Project Success Basics-Planning, Risk Management, and Visibility"

For further information see pnsqc.org or call Pacific Agenda at 503-223-8633 ,

(cont. 011 p. 16)

1 5

The E-Commerce IT Applications Conference is being co­sponsored by the Seattle Area Software Quality Assurance Group (SASQAG.org) in Seattle and will be held June 10-1 3 , 200L There will be three tracks including Testing E-Commerce Software, Building Quality Into E-Commerce Systems, and Test Tools . Keynotes will be by Randy Rice of Rice Consulting Services and Dan of Microsoft. For fU11her information see sasqag.org .

Again this year , SASQAG is supporting the University of Washington Extension in its Software Testing Certificate pro­gram. Ninety hours of evening classes are broken up into three courses:

• Software Quality Assurance and Process

• Software Quality Control and Process

• Test Design and Tracking

This evening program meets twice a week for three hours each night. The certificate program is designed for those who want to change their careers and get into testing and SQA and also for those who are already testers and want to learn about current methods, tools, and techniques. SASQAG supplies mem­bers to the advisory board and instructors.

Of course, if you are in the Seattle area on the third Thursday of the month, make plans to attend the SASQAG public meeting at 6:00 p.m. The program includes a guest speaker and a net­working session that includes an ASQ Software Division table with literature on the organization, publications like the newslet­ter and the journal, and the CSQE certification program. Information and directions are at sasqag.org.

Remember, if you have information about quality events in Region 6, let me know.

REGION 10, DAVID WALKER We are gearing up for another Michigan Quality Conference

this fall. It will be held Thursday, October 1 1 , 2001 , at Mad01ma UniverSity, Livonia, MI. An e-mail atmouncement is being sent to Regions 8, 9, and 10. If you are in one of these regions and do not receive the announcement, call ASQ and make sure they have your correct e-mail address in the database.

For more i nformation about the Michigan Quality 200 1 Conference contact Nancy Poma at nmpoma@mediaone.net .

Region 1 0 now has 2 1 CSQEs . . . wow! In 1999, we had only five. Don't be afraid to take the exam; it is routinely offered in the Detroit and Aml Arbor Sections.

The Great Lakes SPIN (Software Process Improvement Network) meets monthly, September through Meetings take place in the evening of the second Thursday of the month. For more information, go to http ://www.engin . umd.umich.edu/ -gl-spin/index. html .

REGION 1 1 Region 11 has been busy lately with recruiting efforts to find

deputy regional councilors for North Carolina, South Carolina, and Telmessee.

I am happy to announce that all three positions are filled! The deputy regional councilor (DRC) for North Carolina is

Greg Jones. Greg is a technology project consultant for Bank of America, specializing in software process improvement. He was

1 6

formerly with Moody's Investor Service's Financial Information Service, and for many years with Duke Power Company. He holds a degree in nuclear engineering from Texas A&M University, and a master's of engineeling degree in computer sci­ence from North Carolina State University.

Greg is a member of ASQ and the Software Division, as well as the IEEE Computer Society; he received his CSQE ce11ification in June 1999. He also recently received the new ASQ CQIA ce11ifica­tion. Additionally, he is a certified quality analyst from the Quality Assurance Institute, and twice a year teaches its CQA exam review classes. Greg is the current and founding president of the Charlotte SPIN, and past president of the Charlotte IT QA Association (CITQAA). He was a presenter at the SEPG2000 conference, was on the Planning Committee, and served as a session moderator for the SEPG2001 conference. In his spare tinle, he teaches introduc­tory computer classes at the local community college.

The new DRC for South Carolina is Bob Fintak. Bob is the program and quality assurance manager for the Property and Casualty Solutions Group of CSC. CSC is a global provider of IT services-from outsourcing to package software to custom designed software. The Property and Casualty Solutions group is responsible for providing IT products and services to the North American market.

His responsibilities include:

• creating and instituting software quality assurance practices across their development and conSUlting organizations.

• tailoring, education, and roll out of project management processes.

• process compliance reviews (similar to ISO 9000 internal audits).

• conducting and reporting their annual customer survey.

Bob has worked in quality and customer services disciplines for more than 20 years. He has been involved in two implemen­tations and certifications to ISO 9001; one for a manufacturing company and another for a software company. He obtained his quality manager cel1ification from ASQ in October 1998.

And, our volunteer for DRC from Tennessee is James Jean. James, a certified records manager and ce11ified data manager, has worked for Science Applications International Corporation in Oak Ridge, TN, since 1988. He is an information manage­men t consultant dealing with information system design , database development, quality assurance/configuration manage­ment auditing, disaster prevention and recovery, and vital records protection.

He has been a member of ASQ since 1989 and is preparing for the CSQE exam.

He has been involved with information system projects, including quality assurance program plans and procedures since 1 992. His special interests are business mles modeling, require­ments (including regulatory) identification/management, developing Office 1 997/2000 applications, and information/ data/records disaster prevention/recovery plans. He is a member of IEEE and its Computer Society. He is also the membership chair and a board member of the nonprofit organization Private and Public Businesses, Inc., which attempts to unite the private and public sectors in planning for and mitigating "disasters"­manmade or naturaL He recently retired from a military reserve career in which he conducted quality audits and developed emergency management plans. From 1990-99 he was on the six­p erson committee that revised ANSI Standard N 1 3 . 6 , Occupational Radiation Exposure Records. Regardless of the dis-

Spring 200l /S0FTWARE QUALITY

cipline involved, he is an advocate of the fundamental principles of quality management.

These impressive gentlemen will help the council coordinate with the sections in their states. They raised some impor-tant agenda items for our council meeting at AQC.

In addition to regional duties, I will act as the contact for the Virginia sections. Our next undertaking will be to fecmit section councilors for some of the larger sections within our region. We will be cooperating all an e-mail campaign in the next week or two. We look forward to announcing the filling of the section councilor positions soon!

REGION 25, DEEPENDRA MOITRA The I nt e rnational Symposium on Future S o ftware

Technologies (ISFST'Ol) will take place in Zheng Zhou, China, November 5-7, 200 1 , and I will be serving on the program com­mittee for this event . For more i nformation vis i t : www.media.osaka-cu.ac.jp/ISFST200 1 / .

I have arranged for the two best ISFST'OI papers to be pub­lished in Software Quality Professional and the papers will be selected by vote of the members of the program committee. We will consider more papers for SQP, if appropriate.

I was invited to deliver the Colorado Springs Distinguished Lecture Series in Software Engineering in January, and I deliv­ered a lecture on "Global Software Development: Strategies and Tactics for Success. " I also gave a talk on India's software indus­try. Both the talks were sponsored by several companies! organizations in the Colorado Springs region and were very well attended.

The process for sourcing papers for SQP is ongoing and dur­ing January to March, I have sourced a couple of papers for the journaL Working with some contacts, I am also making efforts to popularize ASQ and its Software Division in China and start an ASQ chapter. Several activities are planned toward achieving this in the months to come.

1 00-Boston

1 02-Merrimack Valley

1 03-Hartford

1 04-Granite State

1 IO-Worcester

l i l-Olde Colony

204-Rochester

304-North Jersey

308-Thames Valley

402-Toronto

405-Kitchener

407-0ttawa Valley

Kenneth C. O'Btien

Etic Patel

Walter S. Grudzinski

Dennis J. Rafferty

Jim W. Hansen

John Peter Rooney

Dallas N. Greetham

Gurbachan S. Chadha John C. Deibel Theodore C. Drzala J. Michael Oliker James G. Sigountos

Jerome E. Beauchamp James W. Dees

Michael Nagorny

Wesley A. Somers

Meltem Kisa Keith W. Shewbridge

SOFTWARE QUALITY/Spring 2001

408-Vancouver

409-Calgary

502-Baltimore

503-Harrisburg

505-Philadelphia

506-Delaware

508-Southern Jersey

509-Washington, DC

S I I -Northern VA

60S-Sacramento

606-Seattle

61 3-Santa Clara Valley

614-Columbia Basin

618-Golden Gate

700-Los Angeles

70 I -Orange Empire

703-San Diego

704-Phoenix

705-las Vegas

709-Channel Cities

80 I-Columbus

802-Pittsburgh

8 10-Akron-Canton

900-Cincinnati

903-Indianapolis

90S-Northeastern IN

Steve V. Whitred

Mark Pawson Sandra 1. Runge

leah V. Zimmerman

Gale S. Robinson

Chad C. Haggerty Jose L Ochoa

Charles R. Ristine

Jeffrey A. King

Dale McMillen Erik Plavnieks Linda K. Weir

Loretta Fredericks Shirley J . Gregory Ronald A. Kratzke Rex Dennis Lasley Kaylene A. Millikin David R. Reading Raymond Y. Rheem \Villiam J. Smitll

Carl E. Romine

Sami S. Deeb Steven c. \Xl atson D. lynn Weber James F. \Vhelan

Gerald J. Haddock Dalvinder S. Matharu Stanley H. Murai Khurram Rashid David B. Sheldon

Stephen P. Hans

Michael P. Mullard

Edwin David Quinones

Carol Armstrong Shawn F. Gould

Marc A. Monette Natalie R. Vollrath

Terry 1. Brown Stacey A. Devitt James F. Sims

Faye Bowles

V?illiam P. Feng

Janette M. Glendenning Patticia M. Green Shallll N. Lopresti Rogelio Villarreal

Rashpal S. Ahluvvalia

Michael Stock-Ward

Robert 1. Harrison

Paul M. Filliman Michael D. Hobson Sonia 1. Hoffmann

Michael E. Cromp

(con!. on p. 18)

1 7

909-Dayton Sandy \V. Feola 1 41 4-Austin Area Daniel J. Smith

9 1 1-Lexington Daniel G. Dufresne Lan), E. \Vestberry

1000-Greater Detroit Rajinder P. Kapur 141 6-Greater Fort \X'orth Clark E. Humphrey

Cynthia S. Sommerville I S00-Puerto Rico Omar Laboy

1 002-Greater Muskegon Burton 1. Cooper 1 S O l-Birmingham Shonda 1. Perkins

1 OOS-Lansing-Jackson Donald John Nicholson I S02-Greater Atlantas Nelson M. Barnhouse

1 0 1 0-Ann Arbor Gautam Mishra Joseph A. Cairo \Villiam )ay Jones Jr.

1 1 09-Central NC Laura G. Betts Mansour N. Kenareh

1 1 10-Charlotte Lauren J. Evans Stacie D. Thomas Thomasine M. Thomas

1 1 1 2-Central Savannah River Keith 1. Dykes I S03-Huntsville Sara L. Deaton

1 1 1 3-Raleigh Angela M. Hall Emmett G. McClellan Jr.

1 1 14-Hampton Roads Margery ]. Cox John T. Pape

1 20 I-Chicago Jennifer 1. Medrano I S06-Jacksonville A. Stanley Bullock

Stephen A. Schmoolder IS0S-St. Petersburg-Tampa Krzysztof Hippe

1 202-Milwaukee Russ B. Fitzgerald Gerald Westfall

George Sze I S l 0-Southeast FL Noel Cleland

1 203-Minnesota Poonam Agarwala Mercedes D. Massana

James C. Borucki I S I S-Greater Palm Beach Tom Arbuckle Paul V. Brown

Carolyn E. Niblett Daniel R. Gawarecki I S IS-New Orleans

Barbara J. Holmgren International Patricia A. Krantz

Belgium Bart Brams Sheryl 1. Lager \'(rayne A. Larson India Umashankar R. Belur Jennifer S. Oliver Rajesh Bhansali Vincent A. Rowan Satish Yeshwant Kale Anne Marie Strauss Rangasamy Madhavan

1 20S-Fox Valley Donald 1. Fugate Israel Alexander Abelson Richard A. Markeloff Josef A. Blumberger David M. Sover Mark Matti Chodos

1 2 1 2-Northeastern IL Jonathon R. Carroll Peter Drettel Joseph Gol

1 2 1 7-Madison Alex Hilgendorf Ephraim Golgher

1 300-Denver Gregory P. McGee Jonathan Greenberg

Halbert 1. Sperbeck Daphna Gurland

Donald R. \'(rood Tsvia Fink-Hadad Hanoch Hendel

1 30 I-Kansas City Cara D. Jiles Haviv Herman

1 304-St. Louis David G. Mailes Avidan Hetzroni

1 306-] oplin-S pringfield Michael 1. Young Yuval ]oseph Marius Katz

1 3 1 2-Pikes Peak Denise A. Sheppard Avri Lavfer

1 3 1 3-Boulder Lois J. Hayes Jacob W. Minidor Shimon Moravchick

1400-Albuquerque Martha J. Mitchell Nachum Naveh

1402-Dallas Ronald E. Myers Varda Pollak Yoni Rabinowicz

Melvin ] . Otts Jr. David Salzer Joel R. Pinkus Meir Salzer Ronald R. Smathers Yossi Tzur Mark Douglas Turner

1404-San Antonio Andrew D. Boyd Japan Shinya Kondo

Tsutomu Tomizawa 140S-Greater Houston Robert G. Chadwick Republic of Korea Kim Dokyun

Kevin D. Grove Catherine 1. Hungerford Spain Jose Luis Calvo

Albert M. Jones Harry 1. Kirkpatrick Devashish B. Pathak Timothy S. Voges

1 8 Spring 2001 /S0FlWARE QUALITY

\ )

r- -" \ ) ........... /

OI\'ISIOI\ COl1NCIL �\IEli1BERS 2000-0 J

Linda Westfall-Chair Tom Griff tn-Publications 972-867-1 172 334-244-3304 westfall@idt.net sofm'are_newsletter@asqnet.org

Michael Kress-Chair-elecl Sellin Aissi-Strategic Planning Chair 425-717-7038 503-264-8510 michael . p.kress@boeing.com selim.aissi@intel.com

Jayesh Dalal-Past Chair Taz Daughtrey-Liaison,

732-949-7064 Journal Editor jdalal@lucent .com 804-237-2723 Sue McGrath Carroll sqp _ editor@asqnet.org Internet Liaison

David Zubrow-Metrics, Measure-919-677-8000 ext. 7032

ment, and Analytical Methods SueMcGrath@att.net 412-268-5243 Sharon Miller-Treasurer dz@sei.cmu.edu 972-985-5017 Kim Cobler-Methods sharon.miller@ilex.com 801-363-7770 G. Timothy Surratt-Secretary kacobler@mnm1.com 630-713-5522

Awards & Recognition Chair tsurratt@lucent.com OPEN Scott Duncan-Standards Chair 706-565-9468 A<fembership softqual@mindspring.com OPEN

Doug Hamilton-Certification Theresa Hunt-Programs 847-714-3306 407-859-741 4 ext. 2306 douglas. b.hamilton@ac.com TheresaHunt@Earthlink.net

Claire 1. 1ohr-Education & Training Patricia McQuaid-World Congress 703-391-9007 805-756-1473 lohrsys@erols.com pmcquaid@calpoly.edll

4 = Canada

* Includes Alaska and Hawaii ** Includes Mexico

SOFlWARE QUALITY/Spring 200 1

HEG IO. '.\ 1 . COl' '-;CILORS

Region 1 - John Pustaver Region 10 - David \fl, IkeI' 978-443-4254 800-831-6314 pllstaver@s\Yqu� lify .com dwwalk�r I rilo�Wtlsa.com

Region 2 - Jean Bums Region 1 1 . O;we Williamson 607-779-7868 5' 0-34 ·9205 :< 1 135 bllrns@lIic.com dwilliamson meridilllll .com

Region 3 - Bill Folsom Region 12 - Bob Colby 203-385-4339 630-9 9-6783 wtfolsom@dcmde.dcma.mil rcolb)>@lucent.com

Region 4 - Stephen White Region 13 - Midlad Sucli'.er 613-727-1304 x1668 785-550-0006 swhite@asqnet.org msuelzeG sunflower.com Region 5 - Joel Glazer Region 14 - OPEN 410-765-2346 joel�lazer@md.northgrum.coln

Region 15 - Caml A. Dekkers 813-393-6048

Region 6 - Tom Gilchrist dekkers@CompuServe.com 425-234-4865 tomg@haicyon.com Region 25 - Deependra Moitra

+91-80-527-1771 Region 7 - OPEN dmoilra lucent.col11

Region 8 - Ralph Mohr 614-464-3360 RMohr@CBSINC.com

Region 9 - John Lowe 937-429-6458 lowejohn@prc.com

1 9

D V CSQE Exam December 1 , 2001

..... _:II'� II {

Application deadline is October 5 , 2001

1 1 th International Conference on Software Quality October 22-24 , 2001 • Pittsburgh, PA To register call ASQ at 800-248-1946

SUBMIT ARTICLES FOR THE NEXT ISSUE OF

SOFTWARE QUAUTY BY JULY 1 5, 2001 .

DR. TOM F. GRIFFIN III

PHONE: 334-244-3304 FAX: 334-244-3792 E-MAil: SOFTWARE_NEWSLETTER@ASQNET.ORG

EDITOR DR. TnM F. GRIFFIN III AUM, IS & DS P.O. Box 244023 �Iontgomery, AL 361 24-4023 voice: 334-244-3304 (Business) fax: 334-244-3792 e-mail: soft"rare_newsletter@asqnel.org

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD LINDA �7ESTFALL, Chair MICHAEL KRESS, Chair-Elect TOM GRIFFIN, Publications Chair

JOHN HORCH, Associate Editor ANN BRITT, Associate Editor LARRY THOi\'lAS, Associate Editor DAVE ZUBROW, Associate Editor

EDITORIAL POIlCY Unless otherwise s(ated, bylined articles, editorial commentary, and product and service descriptions reflect the author'S or firm's opinion. Inclusion in Software Quality does not constitute endorsement b}' ASQ or the Software Division.

ADVERTISING FULL PAGE-SSOO per issue 1/2 PAGE-$250 1/, PAGE-$125

Yes! Please enter my subscription to Software Quality Professional, a quarterly publication focusing on the needs of professionals in software quality.

Member Number __________ _

Subscriber inlormation-please send to:

Name ______________________________ _

Company NameiAgency ________________________ _

TitIe ______________________________ _

Address __________________ Apt/Suite # ______ _

City _______________ StateiProvince __________ _

Zip+4!Postal Code ___________ Count!1' ____________ _

Telephone ( ) Fa.x ( ) ___________ _

E-mail _____________________________ _

Payment options: All orders must be paid in U.S. cunency. Please make checks payable to ASQ_ Checks and money orders must be drawn on a U.S. financial institution. All prices are subject to change without notice. Payment enclosed: 0 Check 0 Money Order Amt. Paid. ____ _

Please charge: 0 VISA 0 Mastercard 0 American Express Charge Card No. Exp. Date _______ �

Cardholder Name (please print) ______________________ _

Signature ____________________________ _

Cardholder Address _________________________ _

City ___________________ StateiProvince _______ _

Zip+4!Postal Code ______________ Country ________ _

Telephone ( ) ______________ Fax ( ) ________ _ ,

Subscribe by: Phone 800-248-1946 or 414-272-8575 (outside North America) Fax 414-272-1734 Mail ASQ Customer Service Center, P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, \VI 53201-3005 Online: http://sqp.asq.org

SOFTWARE QUALITY PROFESSIONAL ASQ Members Nonmembers Institutional

U.S. $40.00 $70.00 $120.00 International $60.00 Canada $60.00

$9;.00 $ 150.00 $9;.00 $150.00

&jtu'(/re Quo/if)' ProjllSJioJlo/ is published in [)ecemiler, Maoch, June, and Seplember. Sub!Cription is for one year. Priority Code: QRSADDl

e> 0>

(l) � 0 OJ lO «I Q 0

e (j) 0 a z

a.. ll. D. C Cf) 'E 0 ::l <u

z ll.

� a> Q)

.:£ ::> ro � �

: :

\ J

! r i

I \ I i ! I

{ ' j I \ ! \

I i