Diseño de un programa de medición estratégico para organizaciones de ingeniería de Software: descubriendo dificultades y problemas

Mitre-Hernández Hugo A.¹, García-Guzmán Javier², De Amescua-Seco Antonio³, Velasco-Elizondo Perla⁴

¹ Department of Computer Science, The Center for Mathematical Research (CIMAT), Zacatecas, E-mail: hmitre@cimat.mx

² Department of Computer Science, Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain, E-mail: jgarciag@inf.uc3m.es.

³ Department of Computer Science, Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain, E-mail: amescua@inf.uc3m.es.

⁴ Autonomous University of Zacatecas, E-mail: pvelasco@uaz.edu.mx.

Information on the article: received: January 2013
Accepted: March 2013

Abstract

Software measurement is widely recognized as an essential part of understanding, controlling, monitoring, predicting, and evaluating software development and maintenance projects. Both, software process improvement (SPI) and software measurement literature include many case studies of successful companies and descriptions of their measurement programs. However, there are still concerns on how to design efficient strategic measurement programs. These concerns include the lack of involvement of the SEO's personnel, bad alignment with its strategy and improvement initiative, difficulty to justify the utility of using standards or improvement initiatives, etc. All of the former results in inadequate measurement programs that often lead to poor decisions and economic loss. This paper describes a pilot study to observe and analyze the operation of measurement teams when using measurement methods such as Balanced Objective-Quantifiers Method (BOQM), Practical Software Measurement (PSM) and Balanced Scorecard and Goal-Driven Measurement (BSC&GQ[I]M) to design a strategic measurement program. From the results of the study, we gained some insight on common difficulties and problems, which are useful to consider when designing of strategic measurement programs. This paper describes an important milestone in achieving our main research goal, evaluate and find suggestions to design a strategic measurement program aligned correctly with the strategic goals, for effective decision making at all organization levels and justify the utilities or benefits of integrating improvement initiatives.

Keywords: measurement methods, student teams, design strategy, design reviews.

Resumen

La medición del software es ampliamente reconocida como una parte esencial de entendimiento, control, monitoreo, predicción y evaluación de proyectos de desarrollo y mantenimiento de software. Ambos, la mejora de procesos de software y la literatura de medición de software contienen muchos casos de compañías exitosas y la descripción de sus programas de medición. Sin embargo, existen preocupaciones acerca de cómo diseñar eficientemente programas de medición estratégicos. Estas preocupaciones incluyen la pérdida de la intervención del personal, la mala alineación con la estrategia y la iniciativa de mejora, la dificultad para justificar la utilidad de los estándares o iniciativas de mejora, etcétera. Todos los resultados anteriores recaen en programas de medición inadecuados que a menudo conducen a malas decisiones y pérdidas económicas. Este artículo describe un estudio piloto para observar y analizar la operación de equipos de medición mientras utilizan métodos de medición tales como el método balanceado objetivo-cuantificadores, medición práctica del software y el cuadro de mando integral y medición dirigida por metas para diseñar un programa de medición estratégico. De los resultados del estudio, obtuvimos un panorama de los problemas y dificultades comunes, que son útiles a considerar cuando se diseña un programa de medición estratégico. En este trabajo se describe un hito importante en la consecución de nuestro objetivo principal de la investigación, evaluar y encontrar sugerencias para el diseño de un programa de medición estratégico alineado correctamente con los objetivos estratégicos, para la toma eficaz de decisiones en todos los niveles de la organización y justificar las utilidades o beneficios de la integración de las iniciativas de mejora.

Introduction

If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. This saying is often used as a means to urge a Software Engineering Organization (SEO¹) to define and implement measurement programs. In the past few years, several sources have described how measurement programs helped SEOs to improve the quality their processes and products (Mcloone and Rohde, 2007; Qi, 2007; El-Emam, 2007; Diaz-Ley et al., 2008; Gresse et al., 2003; Daskalantonakis, 1992). Today, there is a common agreement on that measurement programs help to support larger and continuous process and product improvement. Despite the popularity of measurement programs, cases in which these programs are not clearly conceptualized and therefore, fail to accomplish their intended purposes have also been observed. Many factors contribute to the former. For example, Asgarkhani (2006) discusses that the lack of awareness of the benefit of a measurement program from the SEO's personnel, leads to a lack of commitment in its design and implementation.

Additionally, designing measurement programs for effective decision-making at all SEOs' organizational levels is recognized as difficult task (Mathiassen et al., 2005). Alignment with business objectives (Basili et al., 2007 and 2010), justification of the benefits of improvement initiatives (Laporte et al., 2008), and integration of the strategic plan (Tuan et al., 2006) are often issues mentioned in designing effective measurement programs for SEOs. All the former becomes relevant because poorly designed measurement programs could cause problems such as bad decision-making and economic loss (Basili et al., 2007 and 2010; Tuan et al., 2006).

Fortunately, we are learning that an integral software measurement program with a SEO's business strategy is more likely to provide data to support decision-making (Basili et al., 2007 and 2010). However, we consider that it is not clear how to facilitate the design of measurement programs that reflect the progress toward SEOs' business goals at different organizational levels. Hereafter, these measurement programs will be called strategic measurement program.

In order to provide some insight into how to facilitate the design of strategic measurement programs, we report in this paper the results of a pilot study we performed with the purpose of identifying the common difficulties and problems. The study was carried out in an academic setting to observe and analyze the operation of measurement teams when designing a strategic measurement program with the following measurement methods: BOQM (A Balanced Objective-Quantifiers Methodology) (García et al., 2010), PSM (Practical Software Measurement) (McGarry et al., 2002; PSM, 2006; Prasad et al., 2009) and the BSC&GQ[i]M (Balanced Scorecard and Goal-Driven Measurement) (Goethert and Ficher, 2003; Goethert and Siviy, 2004). We discuss the identified difficulties and problems considering three main categories: comprehension, performance and utility of methods. All collected information was analyzed to answer next research questions:

1) What are the difficulties and/or problems to design a precise strategic measurement program for effective decision making at all organization levels?,

2) What are the difficulties and/or problems to align correctly the strategic goals with the strategic measurement program?, and

]]> 3) What are the difficulties and/or problems to justify the utilities or benefits of integrating improvement initiatives in business strategy?

This information will help in achieving our main research goal, evaluate and find suggestions to design a strategic measurement program aligned correctly with the strategic goals, for effective decision making at all organization levels and justify the utilities or benefits of integrating improvement initiatives.

The organization of this article is as follows: in the next section we describe the methods and their importance. The following section shows the details of the pilot study. The fourth section presents the threats to validity of this pilot study. The last section presents the conclusions.

Overview of the selected measurement methods

In this section, we present an overview of the measurement methods used in our pilot study and discuss the reasons why we selected them. In order to support our selection criteria, we also present a comparison of all of them with the ISO/IEC 15939 –a well-known and widely used standard for measurement processes in software engineering (ISO/IEC 15939, 2007). The comparison considers the support provided by the selected methods with regard to the measurement process' activities and tasks defined by this standard.

Practical Software Measurement (PSM)

Practical Software Measurement (PSM) (McGarry et al., 2002; PSM 2006; Prasad et al., 2009) is a measurement framework developed in 1994 by the Joint Logistics Commanders, Joint Group on Systems Engineering (JLC-JGSE). Although PSM was initially created to support the software project management needs of the JLC-JGSE, later on it was extended to cover more measurement requirements. Particularly, those retrieved from project experiences of the US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) and the Department of Defense (DoD). At present PSM is still being used by the mentioned organizations.

PSM provides measurement users (i.e., project and technical managers) with quantitative information to support decision-making at several levels of a SEO. The framework incorporates the use of multiple measures and indicators to identify and evaluate information needs, including issues, risks and problems (McGarry et al., 2002). PSM makes it easy to show, in terms of systemic cause and effect relationships, how measurement can be tailored to satisfy the needs of measurement users. Thus, PSM works also as an impact analyzer.

Balanced scorecard and goal-driven measurement

The Balanced Scorecard and Goal-Driven Measurement (BSC&GQ[I]M) (Goethert and Ficher, 2003; Goethert and Siviy, 2004) is a formal measurement methodology defined by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) in 2003. In 2004, the SEI's Software Engineering Measurement and Analysis (SEMA-SEI) updated it to improve the analysis and collection of measurement information.

BSC&GQ[I]M is based on the Balanced ScoreCard framework (BSC) (Kaplan and Norton, 2006) and the Goal Question Indicator Metric Approach (GQ[I]M) (Park et al., 1996) methods. GQ[I]M, the improved version of  GQM (Basili and Weiss, 1984; Basili et al., 1994), supports the translation of strategic organization's objectives into measures and indicators as well as the their justification through goals-questions-measures. On the other hand, BSC helps to determine how well the strategic objectives are achieved and delimited into vision by refining the previous information into four main perspectives: financial, customer, internal business, and learning & growth. This refinement makes it easier in BSC&GQ[I]M to see how value is created in an organization by means of cause-effect relationships among the indicators identified across the four perspectives.

It is recognized that use of BSC&GQ[I]M provides a systematic way to obtain measures and indicators reflecting the health and performance of an organization (Goethert and Ficher, 2003). Additionally, several sources report the widespread use of BSC and GQM. BSC is used by 70% of companies in the US (Johnson and Beiman, 2007) and by 65% of top companies of New Zealand (Blundell et al., 2003). GQM is the second measurement method used by the SEI customers (Kasunic, 2006). Of these customers, 67.2% use it in combination with the measurement and analysis (M&A) process of CMMI. It is noteworthy that BSC&GQ[I]M can support the M&A process of CMMI with its measurement template (Goethert and Siviy, 2004). All these reasons justify the selection of BSC&GQ[I]M for our pilot study.

Balanced Objective-Quantifiers Method (BOQM)

The Balanced Objective-Quantifiers Method (BOQM) (Mitre et al., 2011; García et al., 2010) is a measurement method developed by the Software Engineering Lab at Carlos III University of Madrid. BOQM is based on a set of widely used and mature measurement methods, namely GQM, PSM, BSC and the standard ISO/IEC 15939:2007.

BOQM defines a process driven by the SEO's key roles to design, implement, and control a quantitative strategy through indicators aligned with strategic objectives, through BSC and GQM principles. Additionally, the inclusion of PSM and ISO/IEC 15939:2007 enables the use of an information model, which defines the kinds of metrics and indicators frequently used in measurement systems and relationships between them. Thus it promotes the collection of good-quality measurement information (Staron et al., 2010).

The selected methods compared to the ISO/IEC 15939 standard

Since ISO/IEC 15939 is a well-known and widely used standard for measurement processes in software engineering, we consider that we can support the selection of PSM, BOQM and BSC&GQ[I]M by showing that all of them have an acceptable degree of coverage of the process' tasks and activities defined by the ISO/IEC 15939 standard. Tables 1 and 2 show this information. We use the symbol "-" to denote no coverage and the symbol "*" to denote coverage.

It is important to highlight that, despite the fact that BSC&GQ[I]M and BOQM do not completely cover the activities and tasks defined by the ISO/IEC 15939 standard, we believe that both methods are worthy of consideration because they deliver an important value to the measurement process by:

a) considering different organizational perspectives (i.e. financial control, customer satisfaction, internal process, learning and growth) of the BSC to determine how well the strategic objectives are achieved across them,

b) defining strategic objectives based on the vision of the organization.

Description of the pilot study

1. Align correctly the strategic goals with a measurement program.

2. Design a precise measurement program for effective decision making at all the levels of an organization.

3. Justify the utilities or benefits of integrating improvement initiatives in a business strategy.

In the following subsections, the experimental method and the data collection techniques are described. Moreover, the entire process –the design of the pilot study, its execution and the analysis and interpretation of data– will be described in detailed.

Method

The experimental method used to achieve the research goals was based on the methodology of Wohlin et al. (2012) for software engineering research. Moreover, for data collection, the Seaman (1999) technique of observations was applied to the tutorials and reviews, and explanatory surveys explanatory were conducted (Wohlin et al., 2012) for the purpose of collecting information of learning, utility and performance of BOQM, PSM and BSC&GQ[I]M. Furthermore, some recommendations of the guidelines established by Jedlitschka and Pfahl (2005), were applied and adapted for the purpose of this investigation.

The context of the pilot study describes all the elements needed to perform the controlled experiment, such as the independent variables, the subjects participating in the experimentation process, and objects that use these subjects to perform the activities of the experiment.

The pilot study was conducted in the field of a process management course during the first term of the Master's in Science and Information Technology at the University Carlos III of Madrid, the best master's in computer science in the technology area in Spain (Periodico El Mundo, 2010).

Three lecturers, P1, P2 and P3 (Professor 1 to 3), were chosen to teach a different measurement method to a class, without expressing any preference for one particular method. These lecturers were selected based on their knowledge and similar experience. The classes were of two hours' duration and, as mentioned before, the methods taught were: BOQM (taught by P1), BSC&GQ[I]M (taught by P2) and PSM (taught by P3).

After these classes, four teams of students with similar skills and experience were formed according with the measurement abilities (these were also similar). The teams and the method they chose are described below.

• Team A. This team chose the method BOQM and comprised two members: the subjects A1 and A2.

• Team B. This team also selected BOQM and consisted of two students: subjects B1 and B2.

• Team C. Method: BSC&GQ[I]M; members: subjects C1, C2 and C3.

• Team D. Method: PSM; members: subject D1, D2 and D3.

The results for these independent variables are shown in Table 4. As we can see, the experience and knowledge of the lecturers are quite similar. However, in the case of the students, only two of them differ from the others in experience. Specifically, B2 with 11 years' experience in software engineering and D2 with 5 years' experience in software development. The training time was the same for all methods and the provided material had a similar format for all the methods and a common case study scenario for all the teams.

Summarizing, the results of the independent variables are similar enough and did not represent a bias for a particular method, that is, we used a generic base line to get reliable results during the pilot study.

The materials provided to support the pilot study are described below in a detailed way.

• Slides of the presentation by each method (BOQM, BSC&GQ[I]M and PSM) to teach classes.

]]> • Practical case study of a real software engineering organization (SEO). The SEO is a Spanish software company, leader in consultancy and IT services. The company has a turnover of nearly 700 million Euros and over 2500 employees. It covers practically all the market sectors in Spain. This organization is structured into the following operational areas: high level management, logistics and administration staff, business development staff, operations staff differentiated by specialties and organized into Centers of EXperts (CEX) and, finally, management of clients whose activity is oriented to satisfying immediate user needs. This structure is in accordance with a client-centered business strategy developed by CEX. The company wanted to begin an SPI project oriented to improving the performance of the Information Technologies (IT) Project Management and Software Engineering areas. The units of the company are: ERP (29 project managers, 120 technical personnel), Customer Relationship Management/Knowledge Management (55 project managers, 200 technical personnel), e-Business (28 project managers, 100 technical personnel), software development (28 project managers, 100 technical personnel), commerce and logistics (25 project managers, 60 technical personnel), Center of Experts (CEX) (20 project managers, 1000 technical personnel). More information regarding the practical case considered for this research work can be obtained at (García et al., 2006).

• Checklists of the implementation of CMMI in the organization for the implementation level.

• At the organizational level: the Development, ERP, CRM, KM, e-Business, Commerce and Logistics, and DTS divisions.

• At the CMMI process areas level, process areas Requirements Development (RD), Project Planning (PP) Requirements Management (REQM) and Quality Assurance Process and Product (PPQA).

• Documentation of the activities to follow to complete the work of each method.

• Template to present the results of the measurement program.

• Template for presenting the indicators.

The explanatory survey was applied to all students after the work. The purpose was to collect information about comprehension and utility of the method assigned (the survey can be seen online at http://www.cimat.mx/~hmitre/StudentsSurvey.png).

Plan

• Comprehension. The ability to understand the measurement method.

• Utility. The perception of the usefulness of the measurement information for decision-making at all levels.

• Performance. The performance of design indicators and the measurement program.

• Comprehension. To measure the learning skills of the purpose of experimentation, we defined the category of comprehension of the measurement method. The purpose of this category is to measure the degree of understanding (learning) that the pupil had with respect to the method used to design the measurement program. This meant getting an average percentage of variables designed to determine if the student understood.

• The limitations of the method compared to the capacity to generate measurement information for projects if the information is designed based on the vision and strategy of the SEO and / or in a competitive environment. This variable was defined as comprehension of the purpose of the method (VE1.1) and its corresponding questions are listed in Table 5.

• The measurement features of the method that can be applied with your method to define indicators. It was possible to define the variable comprehension of the method (VE1.2). The relevant questions are shown in Table 5.

• The use of measurement information that this method can provide to participants of a software engineering organization (SEO), that is, if you know the features provided information to the measuring equipment and all levels of the SEO. The variable was defined as comprehension of the use of the information (VE1.3) (see Table 5).

The specific benefits of the method in relation to strategic management, process improvement, and measurement of software products and processes were considered. From this point, we were able to define the variable comprehension of the benefits of information (VE1.4) (see Table 5).

Utility

To measure the use of the method's information by all roles involved in an effective way, and among the strategic management process aligned with software process improvement, we defined the utility method information category. This category sought, from the students' perspective and in percentage terms, the usefulness of the measurement program design and indicators on software products and processes, and participation of the roles involved in the strategy to all organizational levels of the software engineering organization (SEO). Specifically, the variables were designed to obtain a percentage of income:

•   Data to measure progress and compliance with the objectives of the SEO, decision-making and conduct of a competitive strategy. The variable that was designed to measure this information is the utility method information (VE2.1) (see questions in Table 6).

•   Indicators to adjust and meet the needs of measuring the context of the practical case. The variable that was designed to measure this is the accuracy of the information of method in the practical case (VE2.2) (see questions in Table 6).

• The procedures and documents for the collection and analysis of measurement data. The defined variable is useful information for implementing a measurement program (VE2.3) (see Table 6).

• Reports to inform and enable regular monitoring and decision making of senior management, tactical command and project managers. The variable to measure is the use of information for reporting to all levels of the SEO (VE2.4) (see Table 6).

]]> • Information to provide added value to products and processes of SO. The measured variable is the added value of use of information (VE2.5) (see Table 6).

Performance

To measure the time of designing the measurement information and indicators, that is, promptness of the design for each method, we defined the category of performance to design measurement information. To make this measurement it is necessary to know about:

•   How long it took each team of students to create a measurement program, from the vision and mission of the SEO to strategic objectives, techniques and procedures to arrive at the definition of indicators and this particular program for each method. Given the above, we defined the variable, time to define the measurement program (VD1.1). The specifications of this variable as well as its description, the method of measurement, the measuring unit and scale can be seen in Table 7.

•   How long it takes to define indicators by work team. To this effect, we defined the variable time to define indicators (VD1.2). The specifications are in Table 7.

•   Number of indicators per team designed to meet the measurement needs of decision makers. The variable defined for this measure was the number of indicators (VD1.3) (see specifications in Table 7).

]]> •   To measure the performance indicators is necessary to know how long it takes on average per team to design an indicator. The way to measure this is to divide the time to define the indicators per team by the number of indicators per team. This variable was defined as performance of indicators (VD1.6) and its specifications are listed in Table 7.

However, during the pilot study, observations were made during the tutorials and reviews, only as additional data and for discussions. We identified two variables, the num. of tutorships and num. of reviews. The specifications listed in Table 7.

The observations on students during the tutorships were conducted with the aim of collecting the experiences attended by the teams. The experiences regarding comprehension of the method, and how the method information facilitates the design of the measurement program and the indicators (see variable VD1.4 in table 7).

Observations were made during the reviews on the work of the teams. In the reviews, difficulties were collected properly during the design of the measurement program and indicators (see variable VD1.5 in table 7).

Data collection

In this pilot study, the execution of the main activities of the collection procedure and instrumentation are shown in the activity diagram of Figure 1 and described below:

]]> •   During the first activity and before teaching classes on the different methods, we planned to collect data from the curricula of teachers in the research group of the Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL-UC3M, Software Engineering Lab), University Carlos III Madrid. We selected three teachers with skills in measurement products and processes (MPP) and Software Process Improvement (SPI) with less than three years' experience (variable VI1.1 Table 4).

• After the teachers had taught the BOQM, PSM and PSM methods, using slides, (VI1.3 variable, table 4), we formed four teams and the researcher programmed the consulting and review periods After the teacher had trained the master group with presentations of the methods BOQM, PSM and PSM on slides (VI1.3 variable, table 4), we formed four teams and the researcher programmed the periods of consulting and reviews. We gave the following material to the teams (variable VI1.4 table 4):

• Practical case of a real SEO

• Checklists for implementing the CMMI

• Documentation of the method activities

• Measurement program template per method

• Indicator template per method

• References per method

• Surveys for each student

]]> •   With the above material each team had to devise measurement programs and indicators during four months.

•   While teams were designing their programs and indicators, the researcher was responsible for tutorships to teams and scheduled reviews of the work progress of work. Observations were made on tutorships of equipment and the reviews on progress of work.

•   When the period of reviews, tutorships and the time schedule for completing the measurement program and its indicators were finished, then the work teams gave their work to the researcher and each student gave his corresponding completed survey to the researcher.

•   From the surveys, we obtain the variables of experience and skills of the students in measuring software products and processes, software engineering and software development (variable VI1.2 Table 4). In addition, the variables of the categories of comprehension and utility of the surveys were collected (see variables in Table 5 and 6).

•   The variables of the performance category that were collected from the jobs are: the time to define the measurement program, time to define the indicators, No. of indicators, No. of tutorships, No. of reviews and the performance of indicators (see Table 7).

Data analysis and results

The analysis procedure used for the work teams was the analysis of performance in the design of indicators, and duration for the design of the measurement program for all methods.

The procedure for data analysis in the surveys was a comparison between the averages for the categories of each method, specifically the categories of comprehension, utility and performance. It is worth mentioning that in the category of comprehension we assessed survey responses as an exam in relation to the method developed by the student; this way we obtained the degree of learning of the student with respect to the method. To qualify each variable, evaluation criteria were used per question.

To analyze the student's interest in learning the development of a measurement program, we analyzed the resulting observations made during the tutorships and reviews. As a result, evidences were collected to describe how learning interest affects performance.

Next, in Tables from 8 to 10 (9), we present the difficulties, problems and discussions identified from the results of each variable and category. Each table represents a specific research objective, in Table 8, to align correctly the strategic goals with the measurement program, Table 9, the problems and difficulties to design a precise measurement program for effective decision making at all organization levels, and Table 10, Problems and difficulties to justify the utilities or benefits of integrating improvement initiatives in business strategy.

According to our discussions all problems can be categorized in the next knowledge areas: strategic management, business management, market analysis, and product and process measurement. In sum, there still some concerns without a validated solution, but considering improve the training plan with the mentioned problems and discussions can be an initial solution.

Threats to validity

In this section we discuss the main threats to validity of our pilot study. We consider that all of them have impact on four well-known types of threats to validity (Wohlin et al., 2012): internal – how sure we are that the treatment of the pilot study actually caused the outcome, in this case the impact of the internal profile of students and teachers on the validity; external –how sure we are that we can generalize the results outside the scope of our study, in this case the selection procedure of students and teachers and grouping teams; construct –how to obtain the measures to find the problems and difficulties related to the utilities or benefits of integrating improvement initiatives in business strategy, align correctly the strategic goals with the measurement program, design a precise measurement program for effective decision making at all organization levels; finally, conclusion – how to draw statistically correct conclusions based on qualitative measures.

Internal

Instrumentation. We observed that students requested more tutorships and reviews for BOQM teams due to the lack of strategic business knowledge. But, this had minor impact on results. This is why maturation issues are not important for the outcome of the study.

Profiles of the teachers. Even, we observed that the three professors selected from our research group SEL-UC3M had similar abilities their experience on measurement had minor impact on the results of students. TBD

Profiles of the students. Regarding students, the selection of the students' profiles was crafted to be as homogenous as possible. This an important requirement to ensure that all of them have the same kind of organizational vision deal with some important aspects of the study, e.g. the alignment of measurement and the strategy. However, and because of the availability of students at the moment of the study, it was difficult to resolve the level of experience among certain students, i.e. student B2 —with 11 years of experience in software engineering, and student D2 —with 5 years experience in the development of software. Eventually, no student had experience in strategic management, of course it, was necessary, but its impact is homogeneous in the results.

Grouping of the students. Even though the master degree was considered good in Spain, the number of students was too small, about 13 students, so we did not get to create a good filter for this study. However, the measurement capabilities of four teams were very similar and therefore not considered a problem on the results of impact. TBD

Construct

Sample size. One of our mayor concerns is the sample size used in this pilot study because it impacts on the quality of the quantitative evidence to the support the hypotheses associated to our research goals. Increasing the sample size will enhance the generalizability of our findings.

Conclusion

The tools utilized. The tools used for this empirical study were: surveys to know the comprehension and utility of methods information, observations and reviews over delivered products (measurement program, templates and indicators) and during the tutorships, and a snapshot of strategy implementation in a determinate moment of a SEO.

Conclusions and Future Work

Software measurement is an essential part of understanding, controlling, monitoring, predicting, and evaluating software development and maintenance projects. Both, software process improvement (SPI) and software measurement literature include many case studies of successful companies and descriptions of their measurement programs. However, there are problems on how to design efficient strategic measurement programs. In order to get a better understanding of these concerns, in this paper we presented the results obtained from pilot study, which involved the use PSM, BSC&GQ[I]M and BOQM, to design strategic measurement program.

From the obtained results, it was possible to identify some common problems to design a measurement program for effective decision making at all organization levels, to align correctly the strategic goals with the measurement program, and to justify the utilities or benefits of integrating improvement initiatives in business strategy.

We discussed the identified problems considering three main categories: comprehension –the ability to understand the measurement method, performance– the ability to design indicators and the measurement program in a short time, and utility –the ability to understand the usefulness of the measurement information for decision-making at all levels.

Despite the fact we obtained valuable information, the fact that most of this information is qualitative and the fact that our pilot project was conducted with students makes its generality limited. Our future work includes performing more experiments involving people with a more organizational mature background as most of the problems detect were related to the lack of solid experience on product and process measurement as well as on market analysis. We consider that replicating our study several times with this kind of subjects will help to refine our findings in order to obtain more sounding conclusions.

We are also considering to include the GQM+ Strategies method in future  studies. It is because this method is adjustable to any mature and handy SEO (Basili et al., 2007; Basili et al., 2010).

References

Asgarkhani M. Current Trends in Strategic Management of ICTs, on: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, IEEE Computer Society, 2006, pp. 460-463.         [ Links ]

Basili V.R. & Weiss D.M. A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., volume 10 (issue 6), 1984: 728-738.         [ Links ]

Basili V.R., Heidrich J., Lindvall M., Münch J., Regardie M., Rombach H.D., Seaman C.B., Trendowicz A. GQM+ Strategies-Aligning Business Strategies with Software Measurement, on:  Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, IEEE Computer Society , 2007, pp.488-490.         [ Links ]

Basili V.R., Lindvall M., Regardie M., Seaman C., Heidrich J., Münch J., Rombach D., Trendowicz A. Linking Software Development and Business Strategy Through Measurement. IEEE Computer, volume 43 (issue 4), 2010: 57-65.         [ Links ]

Basili V.R.G.C., Rombach H.D. Goal Question Metric Paradigm. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 1994, p. 2.         [ Links ]

Blundel B., Sayers H., Shanahan Y. The Adoption and Use of the Balanced Scorecard in New Zealand: A Survey of the Top 40 Companies. Pacific Accounting Review, volume 15 (issue 1), 2003: 49-74.         [ Links ]

Card D. Integrating Practical Software Measurement and the Balanced Scorecard, on: Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Computer Software and Applications, IEEE Computer Society, 2003, pp. 362-363.         [ Links ]

Periodico el Mundo. Clasificación de los 250 máster: 50 especialidades y las cinco mejores entidades donde se imparten 2010 [on line] June 16, p. 3. Periódico El Mundo [date of inquire: March 2013] Available on:
http://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=2010%2C%20june%2016%20clasificación%20de%20los%20250%20máster%3A%2050%20especialidades&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.entel.upc.edu%2Farxius%2Franking-el-mundo%2Fat_download%2Ffile&ei=K7xHUdKzLZGA2AXK0oDwAw&usg=AFQjCNHoU2dQ8ZALT_OHlIXQ0jNMjL9nuw&bvm=bv.43828540,d.b2I        [ Links ]

Daskalantonakis M.K. A Practical View of Software Measurement and Implementation Experiences Within Motorola. IEEE Trans Soft Eng., volume 18 (issue 11) 1992: 998-1010.         [ Links ]

Diaz-Ley M., García F., Piattini M. Implementing a Software Measurement Program in SMEs- a Suitable Framework. IET, volume 2 (issue 5) 2008: 417-36.         [ Links ]

El-Emam K. Trial Stat Corporation: On Schedule with High Quality and Cost Savings for the Customer. Performance Results from Process Improvement. DACS Journal, volume 10 (issue 1) 2007.         [ Links ]

García-Guzmán J., López-Cortijo G.R., Amescua-Seco A., Gonzalo-Cuevas A. CASE STUDY: a Practical Approach for SPI in Large Spanish Companies. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 11(3), 2006, pp. 261-268.         [ Links ]

García-Guzmán J., Mitre H.A, Amescua A., Velasco M. Integration of Strategic Management, Process Improvement and Quantitative Measurement for Managing the Competitiveness of Software Engineering Organizations. Software Quality Journal, volume 18 (issue 3) 2010: 341-359.         [ Links ]

Goethert W. and Ficher M. Deriving Enterprise-Based Measures Using the Balanced ScoreCard and Goal-Driven Measurement Techniques. Software Engineering Institute (SEI), 2003, CMU/SEI-2003-TN-024.         [ Links ]

Goethert W. and Siviy J. Applications of the Indicator Template for Measurement and Analysis. Software Engineering Institute (SEI), 2004, CMU/SEI-2004-TN-024.         [ Links ]

Gresse C., Punter T., Anacleto A., Anacleto R. Software Measurement for Small and Medium Enterprises-A Brazilian-German View on Extending the GQM Method, on: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), Keele, UK, 2003, pp. 1-19.         [ Links ]

ISO/IEC 15939-2007. Software Engineering-Software Measurement Process.         [ Links ]

Jedlitschka A. and Pfahl D. Reporting Guidelines for Controlled Experiments in Software Engineering, on: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, 2005, pp. 95-104.         [ Links ]

Johnson C.C. and Beiman I. Balanced Scorecard for State-Owned Enterprises, Driving Performance and Corporate Governance, Asian Development Bank, 2007.         [ Links ]

Kaplan R.S. and Norton D.P. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2006.         [ Links ]

Kasunic M. The State of Software Measurement Practice: Results of 2006 Survey. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-009 [date of inquire: March 2013]. Available on: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/06tr009.cfm        [ Links ]

Laporte C.Y., Alexandre S., Renault A. Developing International Standards for Very Small Enterprises. IEEE Computer, volume 41 (issue 3) 2008: 98-101.         [ Links ]

Mathiassen L., Ngwenyama O.K., Aaen I. Managing Change in Software Process Improvement. IEEE Software, volume 22 (issue 6), 2005: 84-91.         [ Links ]

Mcgarry J., Card D., Jones C., Layman B., Clark E., Dean J., Hall F. Practical Software Measurement: Objective Information for Decision Makers, Addison-Wesley, 2002.         [ Links ]

Mcloone P.J. and Rohde S.L. Performances Outcomes of CMMI-Based Process Improvements. Performance Results from Process Improvement. DACS Journal, volume 10 (issue 1), 2007.         [ Links ]

Mitre H.A., Amescua Seco A., García-Guzmán J. Gestión estratégica para organizaciones de ingeniería del software, editorial académica española, 2011.         [ Links ]

Park R., Goether W., Florac W. Goal-Driven Software Measurement-A Guidebook, Carnegie MellonUniversity, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-96-HB-002 [on line][date of inquire: March 2013]. Available on: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/96hb002.cfm        [ Links ]

Prasad L., Yadav R., Kothari A. Measurement of Software Using Various Construct in Information Model, on: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Control, ACM,  New York , 2009, pp. 720-724.         [ Links ]

PSM. Practical Software and Systems Measurement: Methods of Operation, 2006 [on line]. Available on:  http://www.psmsc.com/Downloads/Other/PSMMethodsofOperations_Nov2006.pdf
Qi-Liu A. Motorola Software Group's China Center: Value Added by CMMI. Performance Results from Process Improvement. DACS Journal, volume 10 (issue 1), 2007 [date of inquire: March 2013]. Available on: https://sw.thecsiac.com/techs/abstract/347321        [ Links ]

Seaman B.C. Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, volume 25 (issue 4), 1999: 557-572.         [ Links ]

Staron M., Meding W., Nilsson C. Developing Measurement Systems: an Industrial Case Study. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 2010: 89-107.         [ Links ]

Tuan H.W., Liu C.Y., Chen C.M. Using ABC Model for Software Process Improvement: A Balanced Perspective, on: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, 2006.         [ Links ]

Wohlin C., Runeson P., Höst M., Ohlsson M.C., Regnell B. Experimentation in Software Engineering, Springer, 2012, pp. 1-236.         [ Links ]

Nota

¹ A Software Engineering Organization (SEO) is an organization with effective management and improvement of internal processes in software development, operation and maintenance. Term introduced by Garcia et al. (2010)].

About the authors

Hugo A. Mitre-Hernández. Is a software engineering researcher at CIMAT Zacatecas, Mexico and member of the SEL-UC3M (Software Engineering Lab, sel.inf.uc3m.es) group at Carlos III University of Madrid. He holds a BSc degree in computer science from the Technological Institute of Culiacan (Mexico, 2003), a MSc degree in computer science and technology from the Carlos III University of Madrid (Spain, 2007) and a Ph D. degree in computer science and technology from the Carlos III University of Madrid (Spain, 2010). His current interests are software process improvement, strategic management in software engineering organizations (SEO), IT governance, knowledge management, product and process measurement and game design and development.

Antonio de Amescua-Seco. PhD. Holds a BSc in engineering and a PhD in computer science (Polytechnic University of Madrid). He is a lecturer in software engineering at Carlos III University of Madrid and founding partner of PROGRESION SMP, whose main research areas are software development methodologies and software process improvement. He has been responsible for the Spanish standard software development methodology, called METRICA V3, for public administration. He has published several books and over 100 technical publications on software engineering and management. He is a member of the Spanish Association of Software Metrics (AEMES) and SPIN-Spain (Software Process Improvement Network).

Perla Velasco-Elizondo. PhD. Is a professor of software engineering at the Autonomous University of Zacatecas and faculty member of the master of software engineering program at that institution. She earned her PhD in 2008 at The University of Manchester-School of Computer Science. From 2010-2011 she was a postdoctoral researcher, working in the ABLE group led by Prof. David Garlan, at The Institute for Software Research (ISR) of The Carnegie Mellon University-School of Computer Science. From 2001-2003, she was associated researcher at the National Laboratory of Advanced Computer Science (LANIA). Her research primary interests include software composition, software architecture and software engineering education in industrial settings.