Assessing the capability of internal metrics as early indicators of maintenance effort through experimentation

Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 225-246

  Bocco, Marcela Genero ^a,d   Moody, Daniel L ^b,c   Piattini, Mario ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CASTILLA LA MANCHA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND   (Iceland)

^c CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

^d Paseo de la Universidad ^*  (Spain)

Author keywords

Class diagram; Complexity; Experimental research; Object oriented (OO) modeling; Software quality; Unified Modeling Language (UML)

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE; INFORMATION THEORY; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

COMPLEXITY; EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH; OBJECT-ORIENTED (OO) MODELING; SOFTAWRE QUALITY; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML);

METRIC SYSTEM;

EID: 20444437172     PISSN: 1532060X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smr.312     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Simon H. Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1996; 215.
2. Weber R. Ontological Foundations of Information Systems (Coopers and Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology Monograph, No. 4). Coopers and Lybrand: Melbourne, 212.
3. Pigoski TM. Practical Software Maintenance: Best Practices for Managing Your Software Investment. Wiley: New York NY, 1996; 384.
4. Singer J. Practices of software maintenance. Proceedings International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'98). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1998; 139-145.
5. Van Genuchten M, Brethouwer G, Van Den Boomen T, Heemstra F. Empirical study of software maintenance. Information and Software Technology 1992; 34(8):22-35.
6. Standish Group, The CHAOS Report. The Standish Group International: West Yarmouth MA, 1994. Available at: http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/ chaos_1994.1.php [30 November 2004].
7. Standish Group, Unfinished Voyages. The Standish Group International: West Yarmouth MA, 1995. Available at: http://www.standishgroup.com/ sample_research/unfinished_voyages.1.php [30 November 2004].
8. ISO/IEC. Software Quality Characteristics and Metrics (ISO/IEC Standard 9126). International Standards Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001; 282.
9. Fenton N, Pfleeger S. Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach. Chapman and Hall: London, 1997; 320.
10. Evans J, Lindsay Y. The Management and Control of Quality. South-Western College Publishing (Thomson Learning): Mason OH, 2004; 848.
11. Moody DL. Using quality function deployment to improve the quality of database designs. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Quality Function Deployment (QFD'02). QFD Institut Deutschland: München, 2002; 112-122.
12. Boehm B. Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1981; 767.
13. Briand L, Wüst J. Modeling development effort in object-oriented systems using design properties. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2001; 27(11):963-986.
14. Brito e Abreu F, Melo W. Evaluating the impact of object-oriented design on software quality. Proceedings 3rd International Symposium on Software Metrics (METRICS 1996). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1996; 90-98.
15. Dekleva S. The influence of the information systems development approach on maintenance. MIS Quarterly 1992; 16(3):355-372.
16. Fioravanti F, Nesi P. Estimation and prediction metrics for adaptive maintenance effort of object-oriented systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2001; 27(12):1062-1083.
17. Li W, Henry S. Object-oriented metrics that predict maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software 1993; 23(2):111-122.
18. Munson J. Software Engineering Measurement. Auerbach: Boca Raton FL, 2003; 443.
19. Van Vliet H. Software Engineering: Principles and Practice (2nd edn). Wiley: Chichester U.K., 2000; 748.
20. Weinberg G. The Psychology of Programming. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York NY, 1971; 292.
21. Flood R, Carson E. Dealing With Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science. Plenum: New York NY, 1993; 280.
22. Davis G, Olson M, Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Development. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1985; 693.
23. Baddeley A. The magical number seven: Still magic after all these years? Psychological Review 1994; 101(2):353-356.
24. Miller G. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review 1956; 63:81-97.
25. Newell A, Simon H. Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972; 920.
26. Driver M, Mock T. Human information processing decision style theory and accounting information systems. The Accounting Review 1975; 50:490-508.
27. Eysenck M, Keane M. Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJ, 2000; 540.
28. Jacoby J, Speller D, Kohn C. Brand choice as a function of information load. Journal of Applied Psychology 1978; 63:83-91.
29. Lipowski Z. Sensory and information inputs overload: Behavioural effects. Comprehensive Psychiatry 1975; 16(3):105-124.
30. Heales J. Factors affecting information system volatility. Proceedings 21st International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS'2000), Ang S, Kremar H, Orlikowski WJ, Weill P, DeGross JI (eds.), Association for Information Systems: Atlanta GA, 2000; 1-3.
31. Klir G, Elias D. Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. Plenum: New York NY, 2003; 349.
32. Arthur LJ. Measuring Programmer Productivity and Software Quality. Wiley: New York NY, 1985; 292.
33. Brooks FP. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1975; 195.
34. Meyer B. Object Oriented Software Construction. Prentice-Hall: Nyack NY, 1997; 1296.
35. Alexander C. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press: Boston MA, 1968; 224.
36. Oman P, Hagemeister J. Metrics for assessing a software system's maintainability. Proceedings Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1992; 337-344.
37. Welker KD, Oman PW. Software maintainability metrics models in practice. Crosstalk 1995; 8(11):19-23, 32.
38. Welker KD, Oman PW, Atkinson G. Development and application of an automated source code maintainability index. Journal of Software Maintenance 1997; 9(3):127-159.
39. OMG. Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification, Version 1.5. Object Management Group: Needham MA, 2001; 736.
40. Genera M. Defining and validating metrics for conceptual models. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain, 2002; 437.
41. Genero M, Piattini M, Calero C. Early measures for UML class diagrams. L'Objet 2000; 6(4):489-515.
42. Genero M, Olivas J, Piattini M, Romero F. Using metrics to predict OO information systems maintainability. CAISE 2001 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2068). Springer: Berlin, 2001; 388-401.
43. Marchesi M. OOA metrics for the Unified Modeling Language. Proceedings 2nd Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1998; 67-73.
44. Bansiya J, Davis C. A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2002; 28(1):4-17.
45. Henderson-Sellers B. Object-Oriented Metrics-Measures of Complexity. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1996; 252.
46. Chidamber S, Kemerer C. A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1994; 20(6):476-493.
47. Lorenz M, Kidd J. Object-Oriented Software Metrics: A Practical Guide. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1994; 146.
48. Harrison R, Counsell S, Nithi R. Coupling metrics for object-oriented design. Proceedings 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1998; 150-157.
49. Zuse H. A Framework of Software Measurement. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 1997; 775.
50. Etzkorn LH, Bansiya J, Davis C. Design and code complexity metrics for 00 classes. The Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 1999; 12(1):335-340.
51. Briand L, Daly J, Wüst J. A unified framework for coupling measurement in object-oriented systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1999; 25(1):91-121.
52. Brito e Abreu F, Carapuça R. Object-oriented software engineering: Measuring and controlling the development process. Proceedings 4th International Conference on Software Quality. Amercian Society for Quality (ASQ): Milwaukee WI, 1994; 212-224.
53. Siau K, Cao Q. Unified Modeling Language-a complexity analysis. Journal of Database Management 2001; 12(1):26-34.
54. Siau K, Erickson J, Lee L. Complexity of UML: Theoretical versus practical complexity. Proceedings 12th Workshop on Information Technology and Systems (WITS'02). Association of Information Systems: Barcelona, 2002; 13-18.
55. Siau K, Tian Y. The complexity of Unified Modeling Language: A GOMS analysis. Proceedings 14th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS'01). Association for Information Systems (AIS): Atlanta GA, 2001; 443-448.
56. Fenton N, Neil M. Software metrics: A roadmap. Future of Software Engineering, Finkelstein A (ed.). ACM Press: New York NY, 2000; 359-370.
57. Moody D. Complexity effects on end user understanding of data models: An experimental comparison of large data model representation methods. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS'2002). University of Gdañsk: Gdañsk, Poland, 2002; 53-58.
58. Shanks CG, Moody DL, Nuredini J, Tobin D, Weber RA. Representing things and properties in conceptual modelling: An empirical evaluation. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2003). Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli: Naples, 2003; 112-124.
59. COSMIC. Measurement Manual-COSMIC-FFP Version 2.0. Common Software Measurement International Consortium, Montreal QB, 1999. Available at http://www.cosmicon.com/ [30 November 2004].
60. IFPUG. Function Point Counting Practices Manual Release 4.1. International Function Points Users Group: Mequon WI, 1999; 266.
61. Symons C. Function point analysis: difficulties and improvements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1988; 14(1):2-11.
62. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Cognition 1994; 4:295-312.
63. Chandler P, Sweller J. Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1996; 10:51-170.
64. Nordbotten J, Crosby M. The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation. Information Systems Journal 1999; 9:139-156.
65. Moody DL. Dealing with complexity: A practical method for representing large entity relationship models. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2001; 352.
66. Shanks G. The challenges of strategic data planning in practice: An interpretive case study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1997; 6(1):69-90.
67. Basili V, Briand L, Melo W. A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering 1996; 22(10):751-761.
68. Daly J, Brooks A, Miller J, Roper M, Wood M. An empirical study evaluating depth of inheritance on maintainability of object-oriented software. Empirical Software Engineering 1996; 1(2):109-132.
69. Cartwright M. An empirical view of inheritance. Information and Software Technology 1998; 40(4):795-799.
70. Unger B, Prechelt L. The impact of inheritance depth on maintenance tasks: Detailed description and evaluation of two experimental replications. Technical Report 18/1998, Karlsruhe University, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1998; 36.
71. Harrison R, Counsell S, Nithi R. Experimental assessment of the effect of inheritance on the maintainability of object-oriented systems. The Journal of Systems and Software 2000; 52:173-179.
72. Poels G, Dedene G. Evaluating the effect of inheritance on the modifiability of object-oriented business domain models. Proceedings 5th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2001). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 2001; 20-29.
73. Chapin N, Hale JE, Khan KM, Ramil JF, Tan W-G. Types of software evolution and software maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 2001; 13(1):3-30.
74. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates: Mahwah NJ, 1988; 567.
75. Pedhazur E, Schmelkin L. Measurement, Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJ, 1991; 819.
76. Harris M, Rosenthal R. Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 1985; 97:363-386.
77. Rosenthal R. Assessing the statistical and social importance of the effects of psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1983; 51:4-13.
78. Rosenthal R, Rubin D. A note on percent variance explained as a measure of importance of effects. Journal of Educational Psychology 1979; 74:395-396.
79. Poels G, Dedene G. Distance-based software measurement: Necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology 2000; 42(1):35-46.
80. Cohen J, Cohen P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlational Analysis Techniques for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates: Mahwah NJ, 1983; 795.
81. Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 1998; 592.
82. Batra D, Hoffer J, Bostrom R. Comparing representations with relational and EER models. Communications of the ACM 1990; 33(2):126-139.
83. Bock D, Ryan T. Accuracy in modeling with extended entity relationship and object-oriented data model. Journal of Database Management 1993; 4(4):30-39.
84. Bodart F, Patel A, Sim M, Weber R. Should the optional property construct be used in conceptual modeling: A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research 2001; 12(4):384-405.
85. Hardgrave B, Dalal N. Comparing object-oriented and extended entity relationship models. Journal of Database Management 1995; 6(3):15-21.
86. Lee H, Choi B. Comparative study of conceptual data modeling techniques. Journal of Database Management 1998; 9(2):26-35.
87. Moody DL. Comparative evaluation of large data model representation methods: The Analyst's Perspective. Proceedings 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'2002), Spaccapietra S, March ST, Kambayashi Y (eds.). Springer: Heidelberg, 2002; 121-132.
88. Shoval P, Even-Chaime M. Database schema design: An experimental comparison between normalization and information analysis. Database 1987; 18(3):30-39.
89. Shoval P, Shiran S. Entity-relationship and object-oriented data modeling: An experimental comparison of design quality. Data and Knowledge Engineering 1997; 21(3):297-315.
90. Weber R. Are attributes entities? A study of database designers' memory structures. Information Systems Research 1996; 7(2):137-162.