Improving the ROI of Software Quality Assurance Activities: An Empirical Study

  • Qi Li
  • Fengdi Shu
  • Barry Boehm
  • Qing Wang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6195)


Review, process audit, and testing are three main Quality Assurance activities during the software development life cycle. They complement each other to examine work products for defects and improvement opportunities to the largest extent. Understanding the effort distribution and inter-correlation among them will facilitate software organization project planning, improve the software quality within the budget and schedule and make continuous process improvement. This paper reports some empirical findings of effort distribution pattern of the three types of QA activities from a series of incremental projects in China. The result of the study gives us some implications on how to identify which type of QA activity is insufficient while others might be overdone, how to balance the effort allocation and planning for future projects, how to improve the weak part of each QA activity and finally improve the Return On Investment (ROI) of QA activities and the whole process effectiveness under the specific organization context.


Quality Assurance Review Testing Process Audit 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    IEEE, IEEE Std 610.12-1990-IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, Corrected Edition, in IEEE Software Engineering Standards Collection, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York (February 1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilb, Tom, Graham, D.: Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grady, R.B., Van Slack, T.: Key Lessons in Achieving Widespread Inspection Use. IEEE Software 11(4), 46–57 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holland, D.: Document Inspection as an Agent of Change. Software Quality Professional 2(1), 22–33 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiegers, K.E.: Seven Truths about Peer Reviews. Cutter IT Journal (July 2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    April, A., et al.: Process Assurance Audits: Lessons Learned. In: Proceedings of ICSE 1998, pp. 482–485 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    CMMI Product Team. CMMI for Development, Version 1.2. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, Q., et al.: Bridge the Gap between Software Test Process and Business Value: a Case Study. In: Wang, Q., Garousi, V., Madachy, R., Pfahl, D. (eds.) ICSP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5543, pp. 212–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boehm, B.W., et al.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, ch. 5, Table 5.37. Prentice Hall, NY (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones, C.: Applied Software Measurement: Global Analysis of Productivity and Quality, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boehm, B.W., Huang, L., Jain, A., Madachy, R.J.: The ROI of Software Dependability: The iDAVE Model. IEEE Software 21(3), 54–61 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The Goal Question Metric Approach, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madachy, R.J., Boehm, B.W.: Assessing Quality Processes with ODC COQUALMO. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5007, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qi Li
    • 1
  • Fengdi Shu
    • 2
  • Barry Boehm
    • 1
  • Qing Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos Angeles
  2. 2.Laboratory for Internet Software Technologies, Institute of SoftwareThe Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations