Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Process
Andrew Marrington, James M. Hogan and Richard Thomas
Centre for IT Innovation
Queensland University of Technology
GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD, 4001.
{a.marrington,j.hogan,r.thomas}@qut.edu.au
Abstract
Agile methodologies have proven to be a popular
addition to the software engineering toolbox, promising
significant advances in quality for small teams, with
developers no longer weighed under by the
documentation said to characterise traditional
approaches. Yet, in spite of these claims, quality
assurance remains a question to which agile
methodologies have given only a partially satisfactory
answer. This work examines quality assurance practices
among student developers working within a lightweight
iterative development process. Our focus is upon the
linkages between their reported practices and the quality
levels observed in the systems delivered. The study has
identified a range of approaches to improving quality for
small, inexperienced teams, with applications to both the
educational and SME environments.
Introduction
The Survey
29%
31%
40%
The
survey
questions
can
be
viewed
http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~marringt/survey.shtml.
online
at:
Above Average
1 out of 5
2 out of 5
3 out of 5
4 out of 5
Average
5 out of 5
Below Average
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Extensible
Design Accounts for Future
Functionality
Easy to Understand
Average
Complex
Below Average
Simple
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Below
Average
Average
Above
Average
Above Average
1 out of 5
2 out of 5
Average
3 out of 5
4 out of 5
5 out of 5
Below Average
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Number of Respondents
7
6
5
1
2
3
4
5
4
3
2
1
0
Used Code Reviews
Used Both
3.2.2
Respondent-Identified Factors
Students were given several opportunities to identify
factors which influenced the quality of their software
which werent already covered in detail by the other
survey questions. In addition, reviewing the survey
responses gave some unexpected and unsolicited insights
into student practice of the RWSP.
Students were asked to describe those aspects of their
approach which had the biggest single negative impact on
the quality of their software. Eleven respondents reported
that lack of time had the biggest negative impact more
than any other single issue although this response
appeared to be correlated with version control problems.
Students were asked to describe their release planning
and time management, and were given the following
options:
Appropriate amount of work for each release,
enough time.
Appropriate amount of work for each release,
not enough time.
Uneven distribution of work between releases,
but well-timed.
Uneven distribution of work between releases,
not well-timed.
Too much work to be distributed properly
between releases.
More respondents who used the CVS system (figure 8)
reported that the workload for each release was
appropriate - and that there was adequate time in which to
complete work on each release - than those who did not
(figure 7). Having a centralised repository from which the
latest version of the software is always obtainable
significantly reduces overheads. Without such a
repository, students have to arrange to obtain the latest
versions of source files from each other through e-mail
and face-to-face meetings the time spent doing this is
non-productive.
Time Management - Opinion of Release Planning (non-CVS
Users)
Appropriate amount of
work for each release,
enough time.
26%
Uneven distribution of
work between releases,
not well-timed.
13%
Uneven distribution of
work between releases,
but well-timed.
22%
Appropriate amount of
work for each release,
not enough time.
22%
Appropriate amount of
work for each release,
enough time.
42%
Uneven distribution of
work between releases,
but well-timed.
8%
3
2.5
Appropriate amount of
work for each release,
not enough time.
25%
Above Average
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Agree Strongly
Average
Below Average
0%
20%
40%
1.5
60%
80%
100%
Below Average
Average
0.5
0
Above Average
Guidelines
[3]
[7]
[2]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[8]
[9]
[10]