A Culture-Based Profile Model of Software Evaluators

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 514)


The paper proposes a new approach to software evaluation, which takes into consideration cultural factors. We use Profile Theory to develop a model that captures the essential technical and cultural characteristics of contextually effective software evaluators. These evaluator-defining characteristics include cultural, organizational, technical, and individual attributes, and relationships among them. We used surveys and literature to identify the prevalent characteristics and then defined a formal model. An illustrative example is elaborated to show how our model can be integrated in a CASE tool. We surmise that identifying the profile of software evaluators is a necessary step to ensure the effectiveness and validity of the evaluation of software systems.


Cultural attributes Profile theory Team diversity Software project performance Software evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Krishna S, Sahay S, Walsham G (2004) Managing cross-cultural issues in global software outsourcing. Commun ACM 47(4):62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cater-Steel A, Toleman M (2008) The impact of national culture on software engineering practices. Int J Technol Policy Manag Indersci Publishers 8(1):76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liang T, Liu C, Lin T, Lin B (2007) Effect of team diversity on software project performance. Ind Manag Data Syst 107(5). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 636–653. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clemmensen T, Goyal S (2005) Cross cultural usability testing. Working paper, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Informatics, HCI research group, p 20Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hofstede G, Hofstede J (2005) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind revised and expanded, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hamdan K (2008) An investigation into software estimation methods, PhD Thesis Sunderland, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamdan K, Smith P, Plekhanova V (2012) Leadership and Cultural Issues: Evaluation and Measurement in the Context of Software Development. Int J Inf Educ Technol. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schein E (2004) Organizational culture and leadership, 3rd edn. Joddry-Bass, John Wiley & Sons, pp 129–225Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hertzum M, Jacobsen N (2001) The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 13(4):421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gillies A, Smith P (1994) CASE usage in the UK, 1991. In: Managing software engineering. Springer US, pp 42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crosby P (1980) Quality is free. Mentor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitzpatrick R, Smith P, O’Shea B (2004) Software quality revisited, proceedings of the software measurement. European Forum (SMEF 2004, Rome), Istituto di Ricerca Internazionale S.r.l., Milan, Italy, p 307/315, ISBN 88-86674-33-3Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roper R, Smith P (1988) A specification-based functional testing method for JSP designed programs. Inf Softw Technol 30(2):89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roper M, Smith P (1987) A structural testing method for JSP designed programs. Softw: Pract Exp 17(2):135–157Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boehm B, Baik J (2000) Empirical analysis of case tool effects on software development effortGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson M, Crouch S, Baxter R (2016) Software evaluation: criteria-based assessment, software evaluation: criteria-based.
  17. 17.
    Majchrzak T (2012) Improving software testing technical and organizational developments. Briefs in information systems, 1st edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dubey S, Sharma D (2015) Software quality appraisal using multi-criteria decision approach. Int J Inf Eng Electron Bus 7(2):8–13Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Futrell R, Shafer D, Shafer L (2002) Quality software project management. Software Quality InstituteGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plekhanova V (2000) Applications of the profile theory to software engineering and knowledge engineering, Chicago, pp 133–141Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plekhanova V (2000) On the compatibility of contemporary project management tools with software project management, information systems management, OrlandoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United Arab Emirates UniversityAl AinUAE
  2. 2.Sunderland UniversitySunderlandUK

Personalised recommendations