Thesis Part I EMGT 698

33 %
67 %
Information about Thesis Part I EMGT 698

Published on February 24, 2014

Author: KarthikMuraliIyer



Although there has been an extensive study over delivering, increasing and maintaining software quality, there has not been enough aide- mémoire on ‘Rating a Software‘s Quality’. This study would project the literature review thus far and also sculpt the scope and need for the evolution of a rating system of software quality for the future.

Western New England University A Study On The Need For Rating Software Quality Although there has been an extensive study over delivering, increasing and maintaining software quality, there has not been enough aidemémoire on ‘Rating a Software‘s Quality’. This study would project the literature review thus far and also sculpt the scope and need for the evolution of a rating system of software quality for the future. 8/28/2012 Under The Guidance Of, Karthik Murali Dr. Julie Drzymalski Asst. Professor Dept. of Industrial Engineering & Engineering Management Western New England University Student ID 131629 EMGT 698 Thesis

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] Table of Contents Sr. No. Topic 1. Page No. Introduction 1.1 Motivation 1.2 Scope of the Research 3 1.3 Statement of the Problem 2. 2 5 Analysis Approach 2.1 A Graph Showing Previous Researches 2.2 Flowchart depicting SQAD 3. 6 9 Classifications & Reviews 3.1 Critical Quality Metrics 12 3.2 Rating System 16 4. Need and Scope for Improvement 17 5. Conclusion 18 Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 1

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Motivation “Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of intelligent effort.” – John Ruskin We are in the 21st century and this era is being overrun by technology. The top of the line technological inventions are making things way easier for the masses as the last decade witnessed the biggest leap in the field of software engineering (Shaw & Clements, 2006). Businesses are becoming too dependent on the IT industry for rendering efficient and the best services. There has been a deadlocked competition since then for providing the best quality software for domestic and industrial purposes. Research thus far; on delivering, increasing and rating software quality has been more generic and thereby the frameworks designed fall into the same components. There has not been any model that exhibits a technique that could rate software quality. The term rating refers to a scoring system that would assist the customer (end-user) to understand that the software is of great quality. Different classes of rating would be a yardstick to meticulously measure the standard of the software application built. These numbers would not only help consumers in their decision but also act as a foundation for the developers to build better applications in the future. Consumers would be more comfortable with an easy to understand system that would not only elevate their interest in the product but also expand the market horizon for the manufacturers (developers). Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 2

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 1.2 Scope of the Research The inclination and the interest of researchers from the past two decades have shown that software quality has been a comprehensive area of study. Software Quality is a vast framework but the existing quality process metrics and their generic design has challenged their own limitations (George, Fleurquin, & Sadou, 2006). There are various quality metrics that have to be taken into consideration while developing software and thereby assessed with utmost caution. Some of the vital calibers in the field of Software Engineering are efficiency, maintainability, portability, reliability, reusability, testability, usability etc. (Fenton, 1996) However, (Dromey, 1994) has argued in his research titled, “Model for Software Product Quality” that software metrics can be classified according to levels of attributes. The high level quality attributes of software are the functionality, reliability and security of a software application. There are times when these factors overlap and create a problem. If there is a defined Quality Rating System, these quality metrics will be pre-classified according to the attributes they possess and eventually it would help in overshadowing the problem of overlapping. The impact of the software quality has not only affected the consumer market but also the internal functioning of the developing organizations. From a consumer’s point of view, software should function flawlessly but it is much beyond that belt of thinking. Any software that is of good quality relies on metrics that are defined pertaining to the resources used in that design. (Boehm, Brown, & Lipow, Quantitative Evaluation of Software Quality, 1976) Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 3

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] There have been more than 50,000 publications in the field of Software Engineering during the last two decades. But the number of contributions made towards Software Quality Rating is a minimum in the field. (Microsoft, 2012) If we notice, today the market allows a product to be dominant only if it is of superior quality and marked with the right price. Quality of a product and the pricing strategy run parallel with one another. This has been stated as one of the recent challenges faced by many organizations. Several models have been defined and designed in order to achieve software quality but all the research have been more qualitative than quantitative. The concentration was more on process metrics. Research indicates that the software quality models provide an explicit process building quality carrying properties into software – which basically dealt with the qualitative attributes of the measurement factors. (Dromey, 1994) His research aggregates the usage of ISO 9126. It relates to the evaluation and assessment of the software being a high level framework and giving room for the software developers to draw a line of quality check on the whole product but it neither mentions the quantitative weightage of the model nor the evaluation mechanism of quality. The most recent publications was regarding the Quamoco Tool (Deissenboeck, Heinemann, Herrmannsdoerfer, Lochman, & Wagner, 2011) which explains the working of the Quamoco Tool that was developed using JAVA/Eclipse. It performs quality analysis of the application depending upon its type. It still leaves the ground of the rating system open for extensive research since there is no concrete system for rating software’s quality. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 4

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 1.3 Statement of the Problem Software quality is evaluated only on the basis of the metrics used in the application design (Frakes & Terry, 1996). There have been large differences in areas of software quality since all process metrics may not be uniform enough for all the software. Whenever a measure is defined – how and why it has been formulated needs to be clearly expounded (Kearney, Sedlmeyer, Thompson, Gray, & Adler, 1986). This point has been taken care of by all the developers, still a clear question beckons, “How can we confirm the assurance about the software’s quality?” The answer lies in taking a leap forward to model such a system that would help in rating software quality. It would not just be a measure but a scaling index in itself. As mentioned (Rosenberg and Hyatt; 1995) there are five basic attributes for quality – complexity, efficiency, reusability, testability and understandability. These are uniform factors that are given acute attention when the software is designed. Figure1 Functional Testing Performance Testing User Acceptance Testing GUI Based Testing Regression Testing Security Testing Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 5

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] The focus of this research is to model a rating system that would act as a Software Quality Index – scoring the software in a specific way that would cover and give more information about the package to the end-user. Testing only, does not mean software quality assurance. 2. ANALYSIS APPROACH 2.1 Domain Trend Figure2 Domain Trend of the Literature Advanced Tools for SQA Software Quality Assurance [Metrics] Classification Category Qualitative/Quantitative Aspects Software Quality (Basic Concepts) End Theoretical Computer Science Duration 1970 1990 2010 Year The above graphical representation gives a gist of the domain trend of the literature used for conducting this research. Software Engineering and Software Quality Assurance (SQA) go hand in hand. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 6

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] Classifications a. Theoretical Computer Science The earliest research and publications were mostly related to theoretical computer science. The concepts and fundamentals revolved around the knowledge that was in the form of theory and not yet taken into advanced implementation. b. Software Quality (The Basic Concepts) The decade of the 90s showed some interesting contributions by many authors to the field of Software Quality wherein the basic concepts of quality were covered. These concepts were tailored further to understand quality engineering i.e. quality modeling for achieving and sustaining software quality. c. Qualitative & Quantitative Aspects Following the 90s, the time span of the last decade shows various contributions to field of software quality – qualitative and quantitative aspects. The publications and researches during this timeline focused more on the development of models for evaluating software quality on both aspects but failed to give a concrete model that could rate the quality of a software. d. Software Quality Assurance [Metrics] From the beginning of this new century, organizations and researchers have drifted their attention span towards the cornerstone of any software’s quality foundation i.e. the Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 7

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] metrics. There are several metrics that are considered while designing and developing a software application. This study of the measuring factor gained utmost importance in the recent decade since there was a strong competition in the software market for delivering the best quality software. e. Advanced Tools for SQA The most recent and the exciting area of research as far as the software quality field goes, is certainly the advanced tools for software quality assurance (SQA). Many tools have been packaged for evaluating software quality according to the type of the software but no design, methodology or technique claims that it can scale the quality of software by giving a number for a higher and clearer apprehension of the features of the software. A very recently released executive white paper explains about the ever increasing code growth in the software projects and the time pressure the developers have to go through to meet the market demands on time (Rommel & Girard, 2012). This white paper also mentions that the usage of standard processes and automated testing such as model-based software testing, dynamic software testing and static analysis tools can help the software engineers to identify and correct the potential errors and overshadow any future threats to the application. With the driving change in the need for process automation and to deliver best quality software with established practices, there arises a need for a system to gauge software quality. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 8

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 2.2 Flowchart Depicting SQAD Figure3 Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 9

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] Explanation The software product development lifecycle is a uniform model which is adopted by organizations worldwide that deal with the designing of software products – be it any kind of application. It is up to the organization as to where and how they include the quality factor to make sure that their software not only meets the customer and market requirements but also uplifts the company’s reputation in the business. Flowchart Details 1. In the initial stages of the software development lifecycle, a team from the software designing organization goes to the client and gets the requirements. This is also known as ‘Raw Knowledge’ or ‘First Hand Information’. This data is then transformed into the requirements needed for doing further analysis and generating a prototype design which would be put to use for checking the match of the transformation of all the gathered requirements. 2. Once the transformation is done, the prototype is ready, and then begins the interaction modeling. This stage involves all the necessary steps that would bring out the different levels of interaction between the application and the client. 3. Once the development team knows the levels of interaction, the next thing they do is build the design. This would be a full-fledged design as it would be the next step after structuring the prototype and all the necessary refined information in hand. This design will exactly be similar to the client’s proposal. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 10

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 4. This design is then taken to the client for an approval. Depending upon the approval, the further steps are taken. If it’s a yes, the team gets back to the advancement in the development of the application. If it’s a no, the team sits and discusses the modifications expected on the software with the client and then redesign the prototype. 5. The team starts designing the application that would go live on the client’s platform. This is one of the stages where the quality factor kicks in. There are a lot of technical attributes taken into consideration. There will not be a 100% implementation of the quality assurance factors but this phase will give light to all the mandatory metrics inclusion in the application. Then starts the restructuring design process. This is also called as the pretest phase. 6. The Alpha Release Stage – this phase is where the software application’s bare version is released within the organization who designed it. The software engineers become the end users and try to understand the way in which the application works. This is done so that they can scan the software product for bugs and fix them. 7. Beta Release – This release deals with the usage of the software product in the client’s place. The real end users run the application. They are allowed to get the feel of it and give a feedback to the designing team and loosen it up if they need to. If any bugs, flaws found they would be rectified here and thus the software is refined for final use. The final approval is taken from the client and the software is packaged for the final release. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 11

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 8. Quality Metrics –The levels of the alpha and the beta release is also termed as the quality assurance belt. This is where the software is tailored for best quality. And the metrics of the software is actually streamlined here. There is always a separate team of people working on delivering the best quality of the product to the customers. 3. CLASSIFICATION & REVIEWS 3.1 Critical Quality Metrics The breathtaking development in technology has insisted upon the need for making robust software. Developers and consumers are becoming more quality conscious when releasing and buying a software product respectively. This has led to a very intense and a competitive market. How do we define quality? Is quality equal to reliability? Reliability alone cannot be considered as a benchmark for rating quality of a software. (Naik & Tripathy, 2008, pp. 471 - 473) (Rosenberg & Hyatt, 1997) Distinguished authors believe that there are a few uniform metrics that are defined for achieving software quality. Some of the metrics that are included during the design can be reused (Frakes & Terry, 1996) in order to improve productivity and quality. Some of the critical metrics are explained in brief as follows, (Sommerville, 2010, p. 670) Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 12

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] Figure4 Critical Metrics Complexity Efficiency Functionality Maintainability Reusability Security Testability Understandability 1. Complexity Complexity can be defined from various angles. It could be the lines of codes, the time taken by the software to transfer to the memory and ready up for execution. Software complexity is applied to the task span interaction between an application and a programmer. 2. Efficiency The efficiency metric of a software product determines the majority of the quality component. There are various types of software products available in the market, some of which revolve around huge complex algorithms and terabytes of data on a daily basis. If the software is not efficient, the end user will eventually stop depending on the electronic application. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 13

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 3. Functionality This characteristic explains the working of the software and the desired output they have been programmed for. It also refers to the accuracy at which it functions. Functionality involves the way in which all modules of the application are related to each other and the effects of their integration on the overall performance. 4. Maintainability Maintainability is spread over a wide spectrum. It relates to the controlling of defects when the software is built and the requirements are transformed into the next phase designing the software in such a way that it becomes an easy task to maintain it in the future. Another aim of this metric is to make the software flexible that it easily adjusts to newer work environments. 5. Reusability It is a segment of the source code. Reusability depends on how good the code can be reused to add new functionalities with little tweaks or modifications. The reusable functions, modules, classes reduce the runtime or the implementation time because they have already been in the random access memory and re-executing to perform some other task. This saves time and memory. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 14

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 6. Security Considered to be one of the vital metrics, security of a software has the highest concern when the application goes live. Data and resources in a software are injected and extracted frequently in many software; it becomes an exigent task to make sure that the transfer of data is over a secured platform. 7. Testability Testing of a software has its own dimensions. Testing flexibility counts when quality of the software comes into the picture. The easier the testing of the software, the more optimized and organized is its architecture. If the software allows itself to be tested in as many ways it can be done so, the chances of detecting defects and clean sweeping them becomes higher. 8. Understandability This metric can be classified as one under maintainability. Assessing maintainability may require the whole designing team to follow the best software engineering practices and the core attributes, some of which are lines of code, software’s architecture, algorithm complexity, module pattern, reuse ratio, documentation, portability and hardware environment. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 15

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 3.2 Rating System The new rating system should be modeled in such a way that it scores the software according to its design, metric coverage and performance. It should not only help the consumers to make a buy decision but to also absorb the features and the appropriate usage of the package. The number that would represent the quality index should comprise of the requirements match, usage ratio and performance prediction. Requirements match relates to the hardware compliance in order to help the software application deliver the most. Usage ratio is the interaction rate between the program and the end-user. Performance prediction indicates the relation between the hardware and the application and the outcome of their integration and execution. The Windows Experience Index (Microsoft, What is the Windows Experience Index?, 2012) is a great example of a typical rating system. It measures the blend of the hardware and software of a windows based computer and gives a score called as the base score. The higher the base score, the better the performance of the computer. This score can be used when buying software applications and games. Some of the games released by Microsoft come with a Windows Experience Index specification. This makes it easier for the customer to buy applications without any hesitation. If the index is low, a hardware upgrade helps to scale up that component, thereby increasing the performance of the whole system (Microsoft, Windows 7 Features - Windows Experience Index, 2012) Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 16

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 4. NEED & SCOPE FOR IMPROVEMENT This research opens up wider horizons to explore and improvise on the current contributions to the software quality field. A rating system would certainly revolutionize the current scenario of software products from both – developer and customer point of view. A model that would derive the quality index of a software will indeed become a vital cartridge of the software development life cycle. Quality rating should not refrain itself to just being a score but act as a foundation for improvements on the software application i.e. smart upgrades and reusability. The following is a graphical representation of the determinants of software quality (Pressman, 2000, pp. 83 - 85). A rating system may help us to identify more dimensions than just metrics to ascertain quality of a software. Figure5 Product Business Conditions Process Technology People Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 17

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 5. CONCLUSION This research establishes a foundation that explains the need of a rating system for software quality. It would be a model that will be quantitative in nature and represent the metric system and the corresponding determinants and dimensions of software quality as a whole. Being an era that is dominated by technology, software engineering has gained a noteworthy impetus. The progress of software quality has also been parallel to the inventions of new packages in the market. The money value is reaching heights and everyone desires to be sensible when it comes to expenditure. Quality is a factor that can control time and money. With a very dynamic rating system, software developers can save time and money simultaneously which proves the need of the system to be the double the worth. The rating system model’s methodology of portraying software’s quality as a quantitative attribute will become a breakthrough and pave way for extensive study and research on the same. “Quality is the ally of schedule and cost, not their adversary. If we have to sacrifice quality to meet schedule, it’s because we are doing the job wrong from the very beginning.” – James A. Ward Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 18

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Bednar, D., & Robertson, D. (n.d.). Software Quality and Standards. SOEC2, 1 36. 2. Boehm, B. W. (1973). Software and it's Impact - A Quantitative Assessment. 1 52. 3. Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., & Lipow, M. (1976). Quantitative Evaluation of Software Quality. 4. Cai, L., Huang, S., & Xie, X. (2011). An Introduction to Software Quality Model Development. Energy Procedia(13), 8749 - 8758. 5. Cesar, J., Yu, Y., Liu, L., Eric, S. K., & Mylopoulos, J. (2005). Quality Based Software Reuse. 1 - 15. Springer. 6. Chelf, B. (n.d.). Measuring Software Quality: A Study of Open Source Software. Tech. Report, Coverity, Inc., Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco. 7. Cognizant. (2010). Software Quality Transformation. Focus on Results, not Process, 1 - 8. Cognizant © 2010. 8. Deissenboeck, F., Heinemann, L., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Lochman, K., & Wagner, S. (2011). The Quamoco Tool Chain for Quality Modeling and Assessment. ICSE' 11 (pp. 1 - 3). Honolulu: ACM. 9. Deissenboeck, F., Wagner, S., Pizka, M., Teuchert, S., & Girard, J. F. (2008). An Activity Based Quality Model for Maintainability. Munchen, Germany. 10. Dr. Petrasch, R. (1999). The Definition of Software Quality: A Practical Approach. FastAbstract ISSRE, 1 - 2. 11. Dromey, R. (1994). A Model for Software Product Quality. 1 - 35. 12. Edgren, R., Emilsson, H., & Jansson, M. (n.d.). Software Quality Characteristics. v1.1. 13. ESA, B. (1995). Guide to Software Quality Assurance. Status Report, European Space Agency, Paris, Paris. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 19

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 14. Etzkorn, L. H., Hughes Jr., W. E., & Davis, C. G. (2001). Automated Reusability Quality Analysis of OO Legacy Software. Information and Software Technology(43), 295 - 308. 15. Fenton, N. (1996). Software Metrics for Quality Control and Assurance. Software Quality Research Laboratory. McMaster University. 16. Fitzpatrick, R. (1996). Software Quality: Definitions & Strategic Issues. School of Computing Report, Staffordshire University, Advanced Research Module. 17. Frakes, W., & Terry, C. (1996, June). Software Reuse: Metrics and Models. ACM Computer Surveys, 28(2), 1 - 21. 18. Galin, D. (2004). Software Quality Assurance: From Theory to Implementation. Harlow, Essex, England: Pearson Addison Wesley. 19. Gallin, D., & Patton, R. (n.d.). Introduction to Software Quality Assurance. 1 - 33. 20. George, B., Fleurquin, R., & Sadou, S. (2006). A Methodological Approach to Choose Components in Development and Evolution Process. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science(166), 27 - 46. 21. Imam, A., Khoja, S. A., & Shariff, I. (2007). Improving Software Quality - A Benchmarking Approach. CSREA Press, 1 - 11. 22. Jordan, A. G., & Provost, E. (2004). Management for Software Quality, Testing & Industry Development. China's SQ, Testing & Strategy Seminar, (pp. 1 - 48). Beijing. 23. Kan, S. H. (2002). Metrics & Models in Software Quality Engineering. Addison Wesley Professional. 24. Kearney, J. K., Sedlmeyer, L., Thompson, W. B., Gray, M. A., & Adler, M. A. (1986, November). Software Complexity Measurement. Communications of the ACM, 20(11), 1044 - 1050. 25. Kitchenham, B., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1996, January). Software Quality: The Elusive Target. © IEEE, 13(1), 12 - 21. 26. Leung, H. K. (2001). Quality Metrics for Intranet Applications. Information & Management(38), 137 - 152. 27. Microsoft, ©. (2012, September 13). Domain Trend. Retrieved September 2012, 2012, from Microsoft Academic Research: Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 20

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] 28. Microsoft, ©. (2012, September 13). What is the Windows Experience Index? Retrieved September 2012, 2012, from Microsoft Windows: 29. Microsoft, ©. (2012, September 13). Windows 7 Features - Windows Experience Index. Retrieved September 13, 2012, from Microsoft Windows: 30. Naik, K., & Tripathy, P. (2008). Software Testing and Quality Assurance Theory & Practice (First ed.). August: John Wiley & Sons. 31. Parallab. (2004). Software Reusability and Efficiency. University of Bergen (Norway), Bergen Center for Computational Science. Enacts. 32. Pressman, R. S. (2000). Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach (Fifth ed.). December: McGraw Hill. 33. Punter, T., & Lami, G. (1998). Factors of Software Quality Evaluation. ESCOMENCRES' 98, (pp. 1 - 11). 34. Rommel, C., & Girard, A. (2012). Embedded Software & Tools Practice. VDC Research. Parasoft. 35. Rosenberg, D. H., & Hyatt, L. E. (1997). Software Quality Metrics for Object Oriented Environment. Crosstalk Journal, 1 - 7. 36. Sacha, K. (2005). Evaluation of Software Quality. 1 - 8. Warszawa, Poland. 37. Shaw, M., & Clements, P. (2006, February). The Golden Age of Software Architecture: A Comprehensive Survey. CMU-ISRI-06-101, 1 - 14. 38. Sommerville, I. (2010). Software Engineering (Ninth ed.). March: Pearson. 39. Tian, J., & Troster, J. (1998). A Comparison of Measurement and the Defect Characteristics of New and Legacy Software Systems. The Journal of Systems and Software(44), 135 - 146. 40. Wallace, D., & Reeker, L. (2001). Software Quality. In NIST. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA: © IEEE - Trial Version 1.00. Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 21

August 28, 2012 [A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR RATING SOFTWARE QUALITY] APPENDIX 1 – Figures Figure 1 Different types of testing methodologies used to fix discrepancies in the software. Information extracted and presented as a SmartArt diagram from (Pressman, 2000) and (Naik & Tripathy, 2008) Figure 2 Domain Trend Timeline of the Literature Review powered by the Domain Trend tool by Microsoft Academic Research Figure 3 SQAD – Software Quality Assurance and Deployment : Flowchart derived after studying the SQA Plan (Pressman, 2000, p. 218) and Software Standards (Sommerville, 2010, p. 657) Figure 4 SmartArt representation depicting critical metrics involved in the designing of a software application Figure 5 SmartArt representation showing the various determinants or dimensions of software quality Western New England University | EMGT 698 Thesis 22

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Open Class List - University of Michigan

698: 001: Capstone Proj(Case ... AENG: 698: 003: Capstone Proj(Case Stud/Dsn) 11066: AENG: 699: 001: Master's Thesis: 19692: AENG: 699: 002: Master's ...
Read more

Thompson Center Encore Parts Diagram | Best Thompson ...

Thompson Center Encore Parts Diagram. by Admin on Monday, February 24th, 2014 ... Thesis Part I EMGT 698 from KarthikMuraliIyer, 20 hours ago in Education
Read more

Open Class List -

Open Class List As of 10-14-2016 08:33. CRN: ... Part-Time Business Internship: 35565: BI: 450: 001: ... Health Psych Thesis Research: 35575: PSYC: 698 ...
Read more

The Rackham School of GRaduaTe STudieS ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Rackham School of GRaduaTe STudieS ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS DEARBORN ... (Thesis Option): ... 27 credit hours of coursework plus 3 credits of ESCI 698.
Read more

Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural ...

The Master of Construction Management is a professional non-thesis degree for part-time ... or EMGT 802, or consent of ... Civil, Environmental, and ...
Read more

Western New England University in USA - Master Degrees

Western New England University is the only private institution in western Massachusetts ... • EMGT 643 Design of ... Thesis Option IE-698-699 ...
Read more

diagram | Best Thompson Center Deals

Thompson Center T/C Renegade .50 caliber Sidelock Blackpowder No description needed...Vintage guns - parts and related: ...
Read more