Facts and Perceptions Regarding Software Measurement in Education and in Practice: Preliminary Results
Mónica Villavicencio, Alain Abran
DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2011.44025   PDF    HTML     6,264 Downloads   10,768 Views   Citations


How is software measurement addressed in undergraduate and graduate programs in universities? Do organizations consider that the graduating students they hire have an adequate knowledge of software measurement? To answer these and related questions, a survey was administered to participants who attended the IWSM-MENSURA 2010 conference in Stuttgart, Germany. Forty-seven of the 69 conference participants (including software development practitioners, software measurement consultants, university professors, and graduate students) took part in the survey. The results indicate that software measurement topics are: 1) covered mostly at the graduate level and not at the undergraduate level, and 2) not mandatory. Graduate students and professors consider that, of the measurement topics covered in university curricula, specific topics, such as measures for the requirements phase, and measurement techniques and tools, receive more attention in the academic context. A common observation of the practitioners who participated in the survey was that students hired as new employees bring limited software measurement-related knowledge to their organizations. Discussion of the findings and directions for future research are presented.

Share and Cite:

Villavicencio, M. and Abran, A. (2011) Facts and Perceptions Regarding Software Measurement in Education and in Practice: Preliminary Results. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 4, 227-234. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2011.44025.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] J. Iversen and O. Ngwenyama, “Problems in Measuring Effectiveness in Software Process Improvement: A Longitudinal Study of Organizational Change at Danske Data,” International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006, pp. 30-43. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.10.006
[2] A. Gopal, et al., “Measurement Programs in Software Development: Determinants of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 28, 2002, pp. 863- 875. doi:10.1109/TSE.2002.1033226
[3] C. G. von Wangenheim, et al., “Software Measurement for Small and Medium Enterprises—A Brazilian-German view on Extending the GQM Method,” 7th International conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering, Staffordshire, 8-10 April 2003.
[4] M. Diaz-Ley, et al., “Implementing a Software Measurement Program in Small and Medium Enterprises: A Suitable Framework,” Software, IET, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2008, pp. 417- 436. doi:10.1049/iet-sen:20080026
[5] M. Díaz-Ley, F. Garcia and M. Piattini, “MIS-PyME Software Measurement Maturity Model-Supporting the Definition of Software Measurement Programs,” Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 41, No. 10-11, October-November 2010, pp. 1223-1237.
[6] J. J. M. Trienekens, et al., “Targets, Drivers and Metrics in Software Process Improvement: Results of a Survey in a Multinational Organization,” Software Quality Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007, pp. 135-53. doi:10.1007/s11219-006-9007-y
[7] C. G. von Wangenheim, et al., “Empirical Evaluation of an Educational Game on Software Measurement,” Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2009, pp. 418-452. doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9092-6
[8] IEEE ACM, “Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering,” 2004. http://sites.computer.org/ccse/SE2004Volume.pdf
[9] Integrated Software & Systems Engineering Curriculum (iSSEc) Project, (Graduate Software Engineering 2009 (GSwE2009), “Curriculum Guidelines for Graduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering,” Stevens Institute of Technology Version 1.0, 124, 2009. http://www.gswe2009.org/
[10] M. Villavicencio and A. Abran, “Software Measurement in Software Engineering Education: A Comparative Ana- lysis,” International Conferences on Software Measurement IWSM/MetriKon/Mensura 2010, Stuttgart, 2010, pp. 633-644.
[11] International Conferences on Software Measurement, IWSM/MetriKon/Mensura 2010. http://www.dasma.org/contray_metrikon_en/html/index.html
[12] P. Bourque, et al., “SWEBOK Version 3. 18,” 2008. http://www2.computer.org/cms/Computer.org/SWEBOK/MeasurementKA-Draft-Feb2008.pdf
[13] C. Reigeluth and A. Carr-Chellman, “Situational Principles of Instruction,” In: C. Reigeluth and A. Carr-Chell- man, Ed., Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, Vol. 3, 2009, pp. 57-71.
[14] L. Buglione and L. Lavazza, “Suggestions for Improving Measurement Plans: A BMP Application in Italy,” IWSM/ MetriKon/Mensura 2010, Stuttgart, 2010, pp. 361-379.
[15] J. Biggs and C. Tang, “Teaching for Quality Learning at University,” 3rd Edition, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham, 2007.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.