臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近幾年來，講到提升軟體的品質，或是要系統化地改善組織對軟體開發的能力和成熟度，Capability Maturity Model (CMM) / Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)已經成為業界遵守的標竿。然而，如何將非常理論的CMMI 確實有效率地應用在軟體開發組織內，這方面的研究仍然相當缺乏。

本論文發展一個i-MDQ方法，指引組織建構一個可量化品質管理系統。這個方法是結合業界的最佳實作經驗和CMMI中跟品質相關的流程領域(包括，流程與產品品質保證，原因分析與解決方案, 度量與分析)，然後根據品質能力層級，逐步建構完成。而且如何將 CMMI實際應用到大型且複雜的軟體開發和維護組織，我們也提供了一個很好的範例。最後，在收集一年多的資料以後，我們發現主要產品上線後的缺陷個數從53個(2004 下半年)下降為23個(2005 下半年)，而且開發階段缺陷移除效率從65.32% (2004 年) 提升到85.12% (2005 年) 。這個數據證明，我們建構的可量化品質管理系統的確在組織內部發生效用，而且產品品質也進一步獲得了改善。

In recent years, Capability Maturity Model (CMM) / Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) has been approved as the best industrial model and infrastructure to raise software quality or to systematically improve the organizational capability and maturity in software development. However, the research on how to effectively and efficiently implement conceptual and theoretical CMMI in the real software development environment is still scant.

In this study, we propose an i-MDQ (Integration of Measurement, Defect, and Quality) approach that guides an organization to build Quantitative Quality Management. In the approach, we integrate industrial best practices into quality related CMMI process areas including Process and Product Quality Assurance, Casual Analysis and Resolution, and Measurement & Analysis, and construct Quality Management stepwise by raising quality capability level gradually. We also provide a case study to show how to implement CMMI in real large and complicated software development and maintenance organizations. Finally, after collecting data over one year, we find out the post-release defect of key products decreases from 53 in 2004/2H to 23 in 2005/2H and Development DRE (Development Defect-Removal-Efficiency) increases from 65.32% in 2004 to 85.12% in 2005. That evidence shows that Quantitative Quality Management we constructed takes great effects in the organization and the quality of software products is also improved further.

摘 要 I
ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III
LIST OF FIGURES VI
LIST OF TABLES VII
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION - 1 -
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION - 1 -
1.1.1 The Large and Complicated Software Development Environment - 1 -
1.1.2 Approaches to Improve Software Quality - CMMI - 1 -
1.2 MOTIVATION - 3 -
1.3 PURPOSE - 3 -
1.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS - 5 -
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS THESIS - 5 -
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE SURVEY - 6 -
2.1 CMMI INTRODUCTION - 6 -
2.2 SOFTWARE MEASUREMENT - 10 -
2.3 DEFECT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY - 11 -
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN STRATEGY OF QUANTITATIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT - 12 -
3.1 OVERALL ALGORITHM - 12 -
3.2 PROCEDURAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT - 14 -
3.3 DEFECT MANAGEMENT - 16 -
3.3.1 Defect Management Model - 17 -
3.4 QUANTITATIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT - 18 -
3.4.1 Using the Expanded GQM Paradigm in Measurement & Analysis - 19 -
CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND DEPLOYMENT - 22 -
4.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT - 22 -
4.1.1 Work Flow of SQA personnel - 22 -
4.1.2 QA Checklist - 26 -
4.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEFECT MANAGEMENT - 28 -
4.2.1 Construction of Defect Tracker - 29 -
4.2.2 Rules for Defect Collection - 31 -
4.2.3 Defect Causal Analysis - 32 -
4.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF QUANTITATIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT - 34 -
4.3.1 Integrated Procedure of Quantitative Quality Management - 36 -
4.3.2 A Example of Indicator – Defect Distribution Matrix - 38 -
CHAPTER 5. BENEFITS EVALUATON - 40 -
5.1.1 Case Study (I) – Application of Defect Distribution Matrix, DRE - 42 -
5.1.2 Case Study (II) – Application of Defect Orign, Defect Type, Major Loss - 43 -
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS - 46 -
REFERENCES - 48 -
APPENDIX A – ACRONYMS DEFINITION - 49 -

[1] SEI, “Introduction to CMMI-Staged V 1.1 Module 2-090103,” 2002.
[2] Humphrey, Watts S., “Managing the Software Process,” Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989.
[3] SEI, “The IDEAL Model,” http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ideal/ideal.html
[4] SEI, “Getting Started with CMMI Adoption,” http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/adoption/cmmi-start.html
[5] F. Brooks, “No silver bullets-essence and accidents of software engineering," IEEE Computer, pp. 10-18, April 1987.
[6] SEI, “2003 CMMI V1.1 Products,” 2003.
[7] SEI, “CMMI for Systems Engineering, Software Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development, and Supplier Sourcing (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1), Continuous Representation,” Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-011, 2002.
[8] SEI, “CMMI for Systems Engineering, Software Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development, and Supplier Sourcing (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1), Staged Representation,” Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012, 2002.
[9] Victor R. Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, “Improve Software Quality by Reusing Knowledge and Experience,” Sloan Management Review, pp. 55-64, Fall, 1995.
[10] IEEE Software Engineering Standards, Standard 610.12-1990, pp. 47-48.
[11] Ragland, B., “Measure, Metric or Indicator: What’s the Difference?” Crosstalk, vol. 8, no. 3, March 1995, p. 29-30.
[12] S.H. Kan, “Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering,” Addison-Wesley, 1995.
[13] R. Dunn, “Software Defect Removal,” McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 1984.
[14] Crosby, P.B., “Quality Is Free,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979.
[15] Sommerville, I., “Software Engineering,” 5th ed., Addison-Wesley, London, 1995.
[16] H. Younessi, “Object-Oriented Defect Management of Software,” Prentice Hall, 2002.
[17] Quality Assurance Institute, “Establishing a Software Defect Management Process,” Quality Assurance Institute Research Report #8, 1995.
[18] J. D. Musa, A. Iannino, and K.Okumoto, “Software reliability-measurement, prediction, application,” McGraw Hill Book Company, 1987.
[19] Rombach, H. Dieter & Ulery, Bradford T., “Improving Software Maintenance Through Measurement,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 77, No. 4 (April 1989): 581-595.