Software Quality Journal

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 223–240 | Cite as

Coupling Trends in Industrial Prototyping Roles: An Empirical Investigation

  • Keith Phalp
  • Steve Counsell
Article

Abstract

Prototyping in the development cycle claims to improve analyst understanding of system requirements leading to systems which match those requirements more closely. The quality of the end systems, from a user perspective, is thus improved. In this paper, the results of an empirical investigation into the use of prototyping in the development of various systems is described. Nine processes across eight different sites were analysed and data relating to each process was collected. The notation of Role Activity Diagrams (RADs) was used to capture each of the nine processes. Five hypotheses were then investigated: these related the prototyping role to features of other roles such as extent of interaction during the prototyping process, the effect site size had on the prototyping role and the dependence of the prototyping role on other roles in the prototyping process. Two coupling metrics were introduced to quantitatively analyse these RAD features. Results indicated a strong similarity between large and medium-sized sites in terms of interactions and behaviour. The prototyping process in small sites, however, was found to be different to large and medium-sized sites in both respects. The study demonstrates how measures of business models can aid analysis of the process as well as the products of systems development and highlights the need for more empirical investigation into this and other facets of the software development process.

prototyping coupling requirements empirical 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Basili, V.R. 1996. The role of experimentation in software engineering: Past, current, and future. Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Software Eng. pp. 442-449.Google Scholar
  2. Basili, V.R., Briand, L.C., and Melo, W.L. 1996. A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators, IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 22(10): 751-761.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, J. 1987. People are our most important product. Software Engineering Education, Gibbs, E. and Fairley, R. (eds.), Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Card, D. 1995. The RAD fad: Istiming really everything? IEEE Software, Jan.: 19-22.Google Scholar
  5. Carmel, E. 1995. Does RAD live up to the hype? IEEE Software, Jan.: 24-26.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, L. 1997. An Empirical Investigation into Management andControl of Software Prototyping. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computing, Bournemouth University.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, G. and Verbruggen, R. 1998. A quality software process for rapid application development, Software Quality J. 7(2): 107-122.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, A. 1992. Operational prototyping: A new development approach, IEEE software, pp. 70-78.Google Scholar
  9. Fenton, N.E. and Pfleeger, S.L. 1996. Software Metrics, A Rigorous andPractical Approach, International Thomson Computer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gordon, V. and Bieman, J. 1993. Reported effects of rapid prototyping on industrial software quality, Software Quality J. 2(2): 93-108.Google Scholar
  11. Gordon, V. and Bieman, J. 1995. Rapid prototyping: Lessons learned, IEEE Software, Jan.: 85-95 (reprinted in: Software Project Management: Readings and Cases, First Edition by C. Kemerer, Irwin Publishing, 1997).Google Scholar
  12. Handy, R. 1976. Understanding Organisations, Penguin.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, R., Counsell, S.J., and Nithi, R. 1998. An evaluation of the MOOD set of object-oriented software metrics, IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 24(6): 491-496.Google Scholar
  14. Lichter, H., Schneider-Hufschmidt, M., and Zullighoven, H. 1994. Prototyping in industrial software projects: Bridging the gap between theory and practice, IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 20(11): 825-832.Google Scholar
  15. Lorenz, M. and Kidd, J. 1994. Object-OrientedSoftware Metrics, Prentice Hall Object-Oriented Series.Google Scholar
  16. Miers, D. 1994. Business Process Re-Engineering: Myth and Reality, Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  17. Ould, M. 1995. Business Processes: Modelling andAnalysis for Rengineering andImprovement, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Ould, M. and Roberts, C. 1986. Modelling iteration in the software process. 3rdInt. Software Process Workshop, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Phalp, K. and Counsell, S. 1997. Counts and heuristics for static process models. Proc. ICSE Workshop on Process Modelling and Software Evolution, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Phalp, K. and Counsell, S. 2000. The application of metrics to industrial prototyping processes: An empirical study. Software Process Technology, Ed. R. Conradi, Springer-Verlag Series, 1780: 239-248.Google Scholar
  21. Phalp, K. and Sheppered, M. 1999. Analysing process models quantitatively. Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE'99) Keele, Staffordshire, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Reilly, J. 1995. Does RAD live up to the hype? IEEE Software, Jan.: 24-26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Phalp
    • 1
  • Steve Counsell
    • 2
  1. 1.Empirical Software Engineering GroupBournemouth UniversityBournemouthUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, Birkbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonLondon

Personalised recommendations