Aleks Weitzer (2010) Comparison and evaluation of software development processes. MSc thesis.
The pupose of this master thesis is to provide an insight into the area of software development mothodology evaluation and improvement. It also offers an overview of the current software development methodology used for Data Protector projects within the Hermes Softlab d.o.o. company. And so does it provide a description and characteristics of three other software development methodologies, i.e. SCRUM, XP, and UP. It is common to every software development organization that an »ad hoc« software development approach is followed by the phase of sotware development methodology formalization and its introduction. From this point on there's a need for constant evaluation and improvement of the existing software development methodology, and this is the area on which this master thesis is mainly focused. The methodology evaluation is executed by comparing the presented sotware development methodologies using the balanced scorecard method. Categories of criterias used for the methodology comparison are devided into two units. The first unit consists of common methodology characteristics, while the second unit consists of specific methodology characteristics derived from practical experiencies and tied to the Data Protectore projects and to the Hermes softlab d.o.o. organization. The phase of comparison and evaluiation of the curently used software development methodology is followed by the phase of its improvement. The aim of such improvement activities is to raise the level of the CMMI model. Improvement activities to the currently used sotware development methodology are conducted using two different approaches. The first approach takes the results of the executed methodology comparison and evaluation and for those criteria where the currently used methodology proves to score poorly, proposes such improvements that should raise the score of these criteria. In certain situations elements from a methodology which scored better are simply taken into the existing methodology. As a result of such improvement activities a scheme for a hybrid software development methodology has been designed, which bases on balance between discipline and agility. The second approach identifies those software development methodology elements which prove to be unsuitable from a technical or social perspective, and improves them to the level that they become both technically and socially suitable. Numerous studies prove that there are two aspects identified why a formalized software development methodology is not accepted. The first aspect considers the fact that a methodology might not suit to the needs of a specific project or organization. The second aspect considers the fact that a methodology might not suit to the social characteristics of a development team or organization. The consequence of applying a methodology which is either technically unsuitable for a specific project or either socially unsuitable for a specific development team would be, that the methodology is treated as unusable by its users, although the organization invests considerable resources into its construction and deployment. The first step for improving the mentioned situation is to evaluate the methodology's technical suitability for a specific project and its social suitability for a specific development team. Such approach offers capabilities to identify such methodology elements which are unsuitable for at least one of the two aspects mentioned above. Based on evaluation results an organization is able to prepare appropriate corrective actions for every single methodology element and in this way gradually improves the usability value of its software development methodology.
|Item Type: ||Thesis (MSc thesis)|
|Keywords: ||EMR Software development methodology element UP Unified Process XP Extreme Programming BUILD A software release package, a result of source code program translation and compilation BUILDING Build preparation BDUP “Big Design Up Front” – detailed design and architecture definition before the implementation phase|
|Number of Pages: ||88|
|Language of Content: ||Slovenian|
|Mentor / Comentors: |
|Name and Surname||ID||Function|
|izr. prof. dr. Marjan Krisper||51||Mentor|
|Link to COBISS: ||http://www.cobiss.si/scripts/cobiss?command=search&base=50070&select=(ID=7561812)|
|Institution: ||University of Ljubljana|
|Department: ||Faculty of Computer and Information Science|
|Item ID: ||1017|
|Date Deposited: ||19 Feb 2010 10:20|
|Last Modified: ||13 Aug 2011 00:36|
Actions (login required)