Software Quality Journal

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 147–158 | Cite as

An investigation of the maintenance and support characteristics of commercial software

  • G. S. Cherf


This study demonstrates an objective method used to evaluate the ‘enhanceability’ of commercial software. It examines the relationship between enhancement and repair, and suggests that enhancement be considered when developing formal models of defect cause. Another definition of ‘defect-prone software’ is presented that concentrates attention on software that requires unusually high repair considering the magnitude of planned enhancement.


Software metrics software estimation change analysis defect prone software 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Basili, V. and Perricone, B.T. (1984) Software errors and complexity: an empirical investigation.Communications of the ACM 27(1), pp. 42–52.Google Scholar
  2. Boehm, B.W. (1981)Software Engineering Economics (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
  3. Box, Hunter and Hunter (1979)Statistics for Experimenters (John Wiley and Sons, New York).Google Scholar
  4. Curtis, B., Shepard, S.B., Milliman, P., Borst, M.A. and Love, T. (1979) Measuring the psychological complexity of software maintenance tasks with the Halstead and McCabe metrics.IEEE Transactions as Software Engineering SE-5, 295–303.Google Scholar
  5. Gibson, V. and Senn, J. (1989) System structure and software maintenance performance.Communications of the ACM 27(3), pp. 347–58.Google Scholar
  6. Gray, J. (1990) Personal communication, July.Google Scholar
  7. Halstead, M.H. (1977)Elements of Software Science (Elsevier North-Holland, New York).Google Scholar
  8. Harrison, W. and Cook, C. (1990)Insights on Improving the Maintenance Process Through Software Measurement TR 90-4, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  9. Lientz, B.P. and Swanson, E.B. (1978) Characteristics of application software maintenance.Communications of the ACM 21(6), 466–71.Google Scholar
  10. Lind, R. and Vairavan, K. (1979). An experimental investigation of software metrics and their relationship to software development effort.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-15, 649–653.Google Scholar
  11. McCabe, T.J. (1976) A complexity measure.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-2, 308–20.Google Scholar
  12. Munson, J. and Khoshgoftaar, T.M. (1989) The dimensionality of program complexity, inProceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Software Engineering pp. 253–254.Google Scholar
  13. Myrvold, A. (1990) Data analysis for software metrics.Journal of Systems and Software 12(3).Google Scholar
  14. Sheedy, C. (1991) Sorceress — a database approach to software configuration management, inProceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Software Configuration Management, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  15. Shen, V., Yu, T., Thebaut, S.M. and Paulsen, L.R. (1985) Identifying error-prone software — an empirical study,IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-11, 317–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. S. Cherf
    • 1
  1. 1.Tandem ComputersCupertinoUSA

Personalised recommendations