Software, like all complex systems, evolves over a period of time. Business and product requirements often change as development proceeds, making a straight line path to an end product unrealistic, tight market deadlines make completion of a comprehensive software product impossible, but a limited version must be introduced to meet competitive or business pressure, a set of core product or system requirements is well understood, but the details of product or system extensions have yet to be defined. In these and similar situations, you need a process model that has been explicitly designed to accommodate a product that evolves over time.
Evolutionary models are iterative. They are characterized in a manner that enables you to develop increasingly more complete versions of the software. In the paragraphs that follow, I present two common evolutionary process models.
Prototyping. Often, a customer defines a set of general objectives for software, but does not identify detailed requirements for functions and features. In other cases, the developer may be unsure of the efficiency of an algorithm, the adaptability of an operating system, or the form that human machine interaction should take. In these, and many other situations, a prototyping paradigm may offer the best approach.
Although prototyping can be used as a stand-alone process model, it is more commonly used as a technique that can be implemented within the context of any one of the process models noted in this chapter. Regardless of the manner in which it is applied, the prototyping paradigm assists you and other stakeholders to better understand what is to be built when requirements are fuzzy.
The prototyping paradigm (Figure 1) begins with communication. You meet with other stakeholders to define the overall objectives for the software, identify whatever requirements are known, and outline areas where further definition is mandatory. A prototyping iteration is planned quickly, and modeling (in the form of a “quick design”) occurs.
A quick design focuses on a representation of those aspects of the software that will be visible to end users (e.g., human interface layout or output display formats). The quick design leads to the construction of a prototype. The prototype is deployed and evaluated by stakeholders, who provide feedback that is used to further refine requirements. Iteration occurs as the prototype is tuned to satisfy the needs of various stakeholders, while at the same time enabling you to better understand what needs to be done.
Ideally, the prototype serves as a mechanism for identifying software requirements. If a working prototype is to be built, you can make use of existing program fragments or apply tools (e.g., report generators and window managers) that enable working programs to be generated quickly.
But what do you do with the prototype when it has served the purpose described earlier? Brooks [Bro95] provides one answer :
In most projects, the first system built is barely usable. It may be too slow, too big, awkward in use or all three. There is no alternative but to start again, smarting but smarter, and build a redesigned version in which these problems are solved.
The prototype can serve as “the first system.” The one that Brooks recommends you throw away. But this may be an idealized view. Although some prototypes are built as “throwaways,” others are evolutionary in the sense that the prototype slowly evolves into the actual system.
Both stakeholders and software engineers like the prototyping paradigm. Users get a feel for the actual system, and developers get to build something immediately. Yet, prototyping can be problematic for the following reasons :
- Stakeholders see what appears to be a working version of the software, unaware that the prototype is held together haphazardly, unaware that in the rush to get it working you haven’t considered overall software quality or long term maintainability. When informed that the product must be rebuilt so that high levels of quality can be maintained, stakeholders cry foul and demand that “a few fixes” be applied to make the prototype a working product. Too often, software development management relents.
- As a software engineer, you often make implementation compromises in order to get a prototype working quickly. An inappropriate operating system or programming language may be used simply because it is available and known, an inefficient algorithm may be implemented simply to demonstrate capability. After a time, you may become comfortable with these choices and forget all the reasons why they were inappropriate. The less-than-ideal choice has now become an integral part of the system.
Although problems can occur, prototyping can be an effective paradigm for software engineering. The key is to define the rules of the game at the beginning, that is, all stakeholders should agree that the prototype is built to serve as a mechanism fordefining requirements. It is then discarded (at least in part), and the actual software is engineered with an eye toward quality.
The Spiral Model. Originally proposed by Barry Boehm [Boe88], the spiral model is an evolutionary software process model that couples the iterative nature of prototyping with the controlled and systematic aspects of the waterfall model. It provides the potential for rapid development of increasingly more complete versions of the software. Boehm [Boe01a] describes the model in the following manner :
The spiral development model is a risk-driven process model generator that is used to guide multi-stakeholder concurrent engineering of software intensive systems. It has two main distinguishing features. One is a cyclic approach for incrementally growing a system’s degree of definition and implementation while decreasing its degree of risk. The other is a set of anchor point milestones for ensuring stakeholder commitment to feasible and mutually satisfactory system solutions.
Using the spiral model, software is developed in a series of evolutionary releases. During early iterations, the release might be a model or prototype. During later iterations, increasingly more complete versions of the engineered system are produced.
A spiral model is divided into a set of framework activities defined by the software engineering team. For illustrative purposes, I use the generic framework activities discussed earlier. Each of the framework activities represent one segment of the spiral path illustrated in Figure 2. As this evolutionary process begins, the software team performs activities that are implied by a circuit around the spiral in a clockwise direction, beginning at the center. Risk is considered as each revolution is made. Anchor point milestones a combination of work products and conditions that are attained along the path of the spiral are noted for each evolutionary pass.
The first circuit around the spiral might result in the development of a product specification, subsequent passes around the spiral might be used to develop a prototype and then progressively more sophisticated versions of the software. Each pass through the planning region results in adjustments to the project plan. Cost and schedule are adjusted based on feedback derived from the customer after delivery. In addition, the project manager adjusts the planned number of iterations required to complete the software.
Unlike other process models that end when software is delivered, the spiral model can be adapted to apply throughout the life of the computer software. Therefore, the first circuit around the spiral might represent a “concept development project” that starts at the core of the spiral and continues for multiple iterations until concept development is complete. If the concept is to be developed into an actual product, the process proceeds outward on the spiral and a “new product development project” commences.
The new product will evolve through a number of iterations around the spiral. Later, a circuit around the spiral might be used to represent a “product enhancement project.” In essence, the spiral, when characterized in this way, remains operative until the software is retired. There are times when the process is dormant, but whenever a change is initiated, the process starts at the appropriate entry point (e.g., product enhancement).
The spiral model is a realistic approach to the development of large-scale systems and software. Because software evolves as the process progresses, the developer and customer better understand and react to risks at each evolutionary level. The spiral model uses prototyping as a risk reduction mechanism but, more important, enables you to apply the prototyping approach at any stage in the evolution of the product.
It maintains the systematic stepwise approach suggested by the classic life cycle but incorporates it into an iterative framework that more realistically reflects the real world. The spiral model demands a direct consideration of technical risks at all stages of the project and, if properly applied, should reduce risks before they become problematic.
But like other paradigms, the spiral model is not a panacea. It may be difficult to convince customers (particularly in contract situations) that the evolutionary approach is controllable. It demands considerable risk assessment expertise and relies on this expertise for success. If a major risk is not uncovered and managed, problems will undoubtedly occur.
There are times when the requirements for a problem are well understood when work flows from communication through deployment in a reasonably linear fashion. This situation is sometimes encountered when well-defined adaptations or enhancements to an existing system must be made (e.g., an adaptation to accounting software that has been mandated because of changes to government regulations). It may also occur in a limited number of new development efforts, but only when requirements are well defined and reasonably stable.
The waterfall model, sometimes called the classic life cycle, suggests a systematic, sequential approach to software development that begins with customer specification of requirements and progresses through planning, modeling, construction, and deployment, culminating in ongoing support of the completed software (Figure 1).
A variation in the representation of the waterfall model is called the V-model. Represented in Figure 2, the V-model [Buc99] depicts the relationship of quality assurance actions to the actions associated with communication, modeling, and early construction activities. As a software team moves down the left side of the V, basic problem requirements are refined into progressively more detailed and technical representations of the problem and its solution.
Once code has been generated, the team moves up the right side of the V, essentially performing a series of tests (quality assurance actions) that validate each of the models created as the team moved down the left side. In reality, there is no fundamental difference between the classic life cycle and the V-model. The V-model provides a way of visualizing how verification and validation actions are applied to earlier engineering work.
The waterfall model is the oldest paradigm for software engineering. However, over the past three decades, criticism of this process model has caused even ardent supporters to question its efficacy [Han95]. Among the problems that are sometimes encountered when the waterfall model is applied are :
- Real projects rarely follow the sequential flow that the model proposes. Although the linear model can accommodate iteration, it does so indirectly. As a result, changes can cause confusion as the project team proceeds.
- It is often difficult for the customer to state all requirements explicitly. The waterfall model requires this and has difficulty accommodating the natural uncertainty that exists at the beginning of many projects.
- The customer must have patience. A working version of the program(s) will not be available until late in the project time span. A major blunder, if undetected until the working program is reviewed, can be disastrous.
In an interesting analysis of actual projects, Bradac [Bra94] found that the linear nature of the classic life cycle leads to “blocking states” in which some project team members must wait for other members of the team to complete dependent tasks. In fact, the time spent waiting can exceed the time spent on productive work! The blocking states tend to be more prevalent at the beginning and end of a linear sequential process.
Today, software work is fast-paced and subject to a never-ending stream of changes (to features, functions, and information content). The waterfall model is often inappropriate for such work. However, it can serve as a useful process model in situations where requirements are fixed and work is to proceed to completion in a linear manner.
PROCESS ASSESSMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
The existence of a software process is no guarantee that software will be delivered on time, that it will meet the customer’s needs, or that it will exhibit the technical characteristics that will lead to long-term quality characteristics. Process patterns must be coupled with solid software engineering practice. In addition, the process itself can be assessed to ensure that it meets a set of basic process criteria that have been shown to be essential for a successful software engineering.
A number of different approaches to software process assessment and improvement have been proposed over the past few decades :
Standard CMMI Assessment Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) : provides a five step process assessment model that incorporates five phases: initiating, diagnosing, establishing, acting, and learning. The SCAMPI method uses the SEI CMMI as the basis for assessment [SEI00].
CMM-Based Appraisal for Internal Process Improvement (CBA IPI) : provides a diagnostic technique for assessing the relative maturity of a software organization, uses the SEI CMM as the basis for the assessment [Dun01].
SPICE (ISO/IEC15504) : a standard that defines a set of requirements for software process assessment. The intent of the standard is to assist organizations in developing an objective evaluation of the efficacy of any defined software process [ISO08].
ISO 9001-2000 for Software : a generic standard that applies to any organization that wants to improve the overall quality of the products, systems, or services that it provides. Therefore, the standard is directly applicable to software organizations and companies [Ant06].
PRESCRIPTIVE PROCESS MODELS
Prescriptive process models were originally proposed to bring order to the chaos of software development. History has indicated that these traditional models have brought a certain amount of useful structure to software engineering work and have provided a reasonably effective road map for software teams. However, software engineering work and the product that it produces remain on “the edge of chaos”.
In an intriguing paper on the strange relationship between order and chaos in the software world, Nogueira and his colleagues [Nog00] state :
The edge of chaos is defined as “a natural state between order and chaos, a grand compromise between structure and surprise” [Kau95]. The edge of chaos can be visualized as an unstable, partially structured stat. It is unstable because it is constantly attracted to chaos or to absolute order.
We have the tendency to think that order is the ideal state of nature. This could be a mistake. Research. supports the theory that operation away from equilibrium generates creativity, self-organized processes, and increasing returns [Roo96]. Absolute order means the absence of variability, which could be an advantage under unpredictable environments. Change occurs when there is some structure so that the change can be organized, but not so rigid that it cannot occur. Too much chaos, on the other hand, can make coordination and coherence impossible. Lack of structure does not always mean disorder.
The philosophical implications of this argument are significant for software engineering. If prescriptive process models5 strive for structure and order, are they inappropriate for a software world that thrives on change? Yet, if we reject traditional process models (and the order they imply) and replace them with something less structured, do we make it impossible to achieve coordination and coherence in software work?
There are no easy answers to these questions, but there are alternatives available to software engineers. In the sections that follow, I examine the prescriptive process approach in which order and project consistency are dominant issues. I call them “prescriptive” because they prescribe a set of process elements—framework activities, software engineering actions, tasks, work products, quality assurance, and change control mechanisms for each project. Each process model also prescribes a process flow (also called a work flow) that is, the manner in which the process elements are interrelated to one another.
Software process models can accommodate the generic framework activities described, but each applies a different emphasis to these activities and defines a process flow that invokes each framework activity (as well as software engineering actions and tasks) in a different manner.
Incremental Process Models
There are many situations in which initial software requirements are reasonably well defined, but the overall scope of the development effort precludes a purely linear process. In addition, there may be a compelling need to provide a limited set of software functionality to users quickly and then refine and expand on that functionality in later software releases. In such cases, you can choose a process model that is designed to produce the software in increments.
The incremental model combines elements of linear and parallel process flows. Referring to Figure 1, the incremental model applies linear sequences in a staggered fashion as calendar time progresses. Each linear sequence produces deliverable “increments” of the software [McD93] in a manner that is similar to the increments produced by an evolutionary process flow.
For example, word-processing software developed using the incremental paradigm might deliver basic file management, editing, and document production functions in the first increment, more sophisticated editing and document production capabilities in the second increment, spelling and grammar checking in the third increment, and advanced page layout capability in the fourth increment. It should be noted that the process flow for any increment can incorporate the prototyping paradigm.
When an incremental model is used, the first increment is often a core product. That is, basic requirements are addressed but many supplementary features (some known, others unknown) remain undelivered. The core product is used by the customer (or undergoes detailed evaluation). As a result of use and/or evaluation, a plan is developed for the next increment. The plan addresses the modification of the core product to better meet the needs of the customer and the delivery of additional features and functionality. This process is repeated following the delivery of each increment, until the complete product is produced.
The incremental process model focuses on the delivery of an operational product with each increment. Early increments are stripped-down versions of the final product, but they do provide capability that serves the user and also provide a platform for evaluation by the user.
Incremental development is particularly useful when staffing is unavailable for a complete implementation by the business deadline that has been established for the project. Early increments can be implemented with fewer people. If the core product is well received, then additional staff (if required) can be added to implement the next increment. In addition, increments can be planned to manage technical risks. For example, a major system might require the availability of new hardware that is under development and whose delivery date is uncertain. It might be possible to plan early increments in a way that avoids the use of this hardware, thereby enabling partial functionality to be delivered to end users without inordinate delay.
Software project management is an essential part of software engineering. Projects need to be managed because professional software engineering is always subject to organizational budget and schedule constraints. The project manager’s job is to ensure that the software project meets and overcomes these constraints as well as delivering high-quality software. Good management cannot guarantee project success. However, bad management usually results in project failure : the software may be delivered late, cost more than originally estimated, or fail to meet the expectations of customers.
The success criteria for project management obviously vary from project to project but, for most projects, important goals are :
- Deliver the software to the customer at the agreed time.
- Keep overall costs within budget.
- Deliver software that meets the customer’s expectations.
- Maintain a happy and well-functioning development team.
These goals are not unique to software engineering but are the goals of all engineering projects. However, software engineering is different from other types of engineering in a number of ways that make software management particularly challenging. Some of these differences are :
- The product is intangible A manager of a shipbuilding or a civil engineering project can see the product being developed. If a schedule slips, the effect on the product is visible parts of the structure are obviously unfinished. Software is intangible. It cannot be seen or touched. Software project managers cannot see progress by simply looking at the artifact that is being constructed. Rather, they rely on others to produce evidence that they can use to review the progress of the work.
- Large software projects are often ‘one-off ’ projects Large software projects are usually different in some ways from previous projects. Therefore, even managers who have a large body of previous experience may find it difficult to anticipate problems. Furthermore, rapid technological changes in computers and communications can make a manager’s experience obsolete. Lessons learned from previous projects may not be transferable to new projects.
- Software processes are variable and organization-specific The engineering process for some types of system, such as bridges and buildings, is well understood. However, software processes vary quite significantly from one organization to another. Although there has been significant progress in process standardization and improvement, we still cannot reliably predict when a particular software process is likely to lead to development problems. This is especially true when the software project is part of a wider systems engineering project.
Because of these issues, it is not surprising that some software projects are late, over budget, and behind schedule. Software systems are often new and technically innovative. Engineering projects (such as new transport systems) that are innovative often also have schedule problems. Given the difficulties involved, it is perhaps remarkable that so many software projects are delivered on time and to budget!
It is impossible to write a standard job description for a software project manager. The job varies tremendously depending on the organization and the software product being developed. However, most managers take responsibility at some stage for some or all of the following activities
- Project planning Project managers are responsible for planning, estimating and scheduling project development, and assigning people to tasks. They supervise the work to ensure that it is carried out to the required standards and monitor progress to check that the development is on time and within budget.
- Reporting Project managers are usually responsible for reporting on the progress of a project to customers and to the managers of the company developing the software. They have to be able to communicate at a range of levels, from detailed technical information to management summaries. They have to write concise, coherent documents that abstract critical information from detailed project reports. They must be able to present this information during progress reviews.
- Risk management Project managers have to assess the risks that may affect a project, monitor these risks, and take action when problems arise.
- People management Project managers are responsible for managing a team of people. They have to choose people for their team and establish ways of working that lead to effective team performance.
- Proposal writing The first stage in a software project may involve writing a proposal to win a contract to carry out an item of work. The proposal describes the objectives of the project and how it will be carried out. It usually includes cost and schedule estimates and justifies why the project contract should be awarded to a particular organization or team. Proposal writing is a critical task as the survival of many software companies depends on having enough proposals accepted and contracts awarded. There can be no set guidelines for this task, proposal writing is a skill that you acquire through practice and experience.
Risk management is one of the most important jobs for a project manager. Risk management involves anticipating risks that might affect the project schedule or the quality of the software being developed, and then taking action to avoid these risks (Hall, 1998; Ould, 1999). You can think of a risk as something that you’d prefer not to have happen. Risks may threaten the project, the software that is being developed, or the organization. There are, therefore, three related categories of risk :
- Project risks Risks that affect the project schedule or resources. An example of a project risk is the loss of an experienced designer. Finding a replacement designer with appropriate skills and experience may take a long time and, consequently, the software design will take longer to complete.
- Product risks Risks that affect the quality or performance of the software being developed. An example of a product risk is the failure of a purchased component to perform as expected. This may affect the overall performance of the system so that it is slower than expected.
- Business risks Risks that affect the organization developing or procuring the software. For example, a competitor introducing a new product is a business risk. The introduction of a competitive product may mean that the assumptions made about sales of existing software products may be unduly optimistic.
Of course, these risk types overlap. If an experienced programmer leaves a project this can be a project risk because, even if they are immediately replaced, the schedule will be affected. It inevitably takes time for a new project member to understand the work that has been done, so they cannot be immediately productive. Consequently, the delivery of the system may be delayed. The loss of a team member can also be a product risk because a replacement may not be as experienced and so could make programming errors. Finally, it can be a business risk because that programmer’s experience may be crucial in winning new contracts.
You should record the results of the risk analysis in the project plan along with a consequence analysis, which sets out the consequences of the risk for the project, product, and business. Effective risk management makes it easier to cope with problems and to ensure that these do not lead to unacceptable budget or schedule slippage.
The specific risks that may affect a project depend on the project and the organizational environment in which the software is being developed. However, there are also common risks that are not related to the type of software being developed and these can occur in any project. Some of these common risks are shown in Figure 1.
Risk management is particularly important for software projects because of the inherent uncertainties that most projects face. These stem from loosely defined requirements, requirements changes due to changes in customer needs, difficulties in estimating the time and resources required for software development, and differences in individual skills. You have to anticipate risks; understand the impact of these risks on the project, the product, and the business, and take steps to avoid these risks. You may need to draw up contingency plans so that, if the risks do occur, you can take immediate recovery action.
An outline of the process of risk management is illustrated in Figure 2. It involves several stages :
- Risk identification You should identify possible project, product, and business risks.
- Risk analysis You should assess the likelihood and consequences of these risks.
- Risk planning You should make plans to address the risk, either by avoiding it or minimizing its effects on the project.
- Risk monitoring You should regularly assess the risk and your plans for risk mitigation and revise these when you learn more about the risk.
You should document the outcomes of the risk management process in a risk management plan. This should include a discussion of the risks faced by the project, an analysis of these risks, and information on how you propose to manage the risk if it seems likely to be a problem.
The risk management process is an iterative process that continues throughout the project. Once you have drawn up an initial risk management plan, you monitor the situation to detect emerging risks. As more information about the risks becomes available, you have to reanalyze the risks and decide if the risk priority has changed. You may then have to change your plans for risk avoidance and contingency management.
Risk identification is the first stage of the risk management process. It is concerned with identifying the risks that could pose a major threat to the software engineering process, the software being developed, or the development organization. Risk identification may be a team process where a team get together to brainstorm possible risks. Alternatively, the project manager may simply use his or her experience to identify the most probable or critical risks.
As a starting point for risk identification, a checklist of different types of risk may be used. There are at least six types of risk that may be included in a risk checklist :
- Technology risks Risks that derive from the software or hardware technologies that are used to develop the system.
- People risks Risks that are associated with the people in the development team.
- Organizational risks Risks that derive from the organizational environment where the software is being developed.
- Tools risks Risks that derive from the software tools and other support software used to develop the system.
- Requirements risks Risks that derive from changes to the customer requirements and the process of managing the requirements change.
- Estimation risks Risks that derive from the management estimates of the resources required to build the system.
Figure 3 gives some examples of possible risks in each of these categories. When you have finished the risk identification process, you should have a long list of risks that could occur and which could affect the product, the process, and the business. You then need to prune this list to a manageable size. If you have too many risks, it is practically impossible to keep track of all of them.
During the risk analysis process, you have to consider each identified risk and make a judgment about the probability and seriousness of that risk. There is no easy way to do this. You have to rely on your own judgment and experience of previous projects and the problems that arose in them. It is not possible to make precise, numeric assessment of the probability and seriousness of each risk. Rather, you should assign the risk to one of a number of bands :
- The probability of the risk might be assessed as very low (< 10%), low (10–25%), moderate (25–50%), high (50–75%), or very high (> 75%).
- The effects of the risk might be assessed as catastrophic (threaten the survival of the project), serious (would cause major delays), tolerable (delays are within allowed contingency), or insignificant.
You should then tabulate the results of this analysis process using a table ordered according to the seriousness of the risk. Figure 4 illustrates this for the risks that I have identified in Figure 3. Obviously, the assessment of probability and seriousness is arbitrary here. To make this assessment, you need detailed information about the project, the process, the development team, and the organization.
Of course, both the probability and the assessment of the effects of a risk may change as more information about the risk becomes available and as risk management plans are implemented. Therefore, you should update this table during each iteration of the risk process.
Once the risks have been analyzed and ranked, you should assess which of these risks are most significant. Your judgment must depend on a combination of the probability of the risk arising and the effects of that risk. In general, catastrophic risks should always be considered, as should all serious risks that have more than a moderate probability of occurrence.
Boehm (1988) recommends identifying and monitoring the top 10 risks, but I think that this figure is rather arbitrary. The right number of risks to monitor must depend on the project. It might be 5 or it might be 15. However, the number of risks chosen for monitoring should be manageable. A very large number of risks would simply require too much information to be collected. From the risks identified in Figure 4, it is appropriate to consider the 8 risks that have catastrophic or serious consequences (Figure 5).
The risk planning process considers each of the key risks that have been identified, and develops strategies to manage these risks. For each of the risks, you have to think of actions that you might take to minimize the disruption to the project if the problem identified in the risk occurs. You also should think about information that you might need to collect while monitoring the project so that problems can be anticipated.
Again, there is no simple process that can be followed for contingency planning. It relies on the judgment and experience of the project manager. Figure 5 shows possible risk management strategies that have been identified for the key risks (i.e., those that are serious or intolerable) shown in Figure 4. These strategies fall into three categories :
- Avoidance strategies Following these strategies means that the probability that the risk will arise will be reduced. An example of a risk avoidance strategy is the strategy for dealing with defective components shown in Figure 5.
- Minimization strategies Following these strategies means that the impact of the risk will be reduced. An example of a risk minimization strategy is the strategy for staff illness shown in Figure 5.
- Contingency plans Following these strategies means that you are prepared for the worst and have a strategy in place to deal with it. An example of a contingency strategy is the strategy for organizational financial problems that I have shown in Figure 5.
You can see a clear analogy here with the strategies used in critical systems to ensure reliability, security, and safety, where you must avoid, tolerate, or recover from failures. Obviously, it is best to use a strategy that avoids the risk. If this is not possible, you should use a strategy that reduces the chances that the risk will have serious effects. Finally, you should have strategies in place to cope with the risk if it arises. These should reduce the overall impact of a risk on the project or product.
Risk monitoring is the process of checking that your assumptions about the product, process, and business risks have not changed. You should regularly assess each of the identified risks to decide whether or not that risk is becoming more or less probable. You should also think about whether or not the effects of the risk have changed. To do this, you have to look at other factors, such as the number of requirements change requests, which give you clues about the risk probability and its effects. These factors are obviously dependent on the types of risk. Figure 6 gives some examples of factors that may be helpful in assessing these risk types.
You should monitor risks regularly at all stages in a project. At every management review, you should consider and discuss each of the key risks separately. You should decide if the risk is more or less likely to arise and if the seriousness and consequences of the risk have changed.
Once you create an operational user interface prototype, it must be evaluated to determine whether it meets the needs of the user. Evaluation can span a formality spectrum that ranges from an informal “test drive,” in which a user provides impromptu feedback to a formally designed study that uses statistical methods for the evaluation of questionnaires completed by a population of end users.
The user interface evaluation cycle takes the form shown in Figure 1. After the design model has been completed, a first-level prototype is created. The prototype is evaluated by the user, 11 who provides you with direct comments about the efficacy of the interface. In addition, if formal evaluation techniques are used (questionnaires, rating sheets), you can extract information from these data (80 percent of all users did not like the mechanism for saving data files). Design modifications are made based on user input, and the next level prototype is created. The evaluation cycle continues until no further modifications to the interface design are necessary.
The prototyping approach is effective, but is it possible to evaluate the quality of a user interface before a prototype is built? If you identify and correct potential problems early, the number of loops through the evaluation cycle will be reduced and development time will shorten. If a design model of the interface has been created, a number of evaluation criteria can be applied during early design reviews :
- The length and complexity of the requirements model or written specification of the system and its interface provide an indication of the amount of learning required by users of the system.
- The number of user tasks specified and the average number of actions per task provide an indication of interaction time and the overall efficiency of the system.
- The number of actions, tasks, and system states indicated by the design model imply the memory load on users of the system.
- Interface style, help facilities, and error handling protocol provide a genera indication of the complexity of the interface and the degree to which it will be accepted by the user.
Once the first prototype is built, you can collect a variety of qualitative and quantitative data that will assist in evaluating the interface. To collect qualitative data, questionnaires can be distributed to users of the prototype. Questions can be :
(1) Simple yes/no response
(2) Numeric response
(3) Scaled (subjective) response
(4) Likert scales (strongly agree, somewhat agree)
(5) Percentage (subjective) response
If quantitative data are desired, a form of time-study analysis can be conducted. Users are observed during interaction, and data such as number of tasks correctly completed over a standard time period, frequency of actions, sequence of actions, time spent “looking” at the display, number and types of errors, error recovery time, time spent using help, and number of help references per standard time period are collected and used as a guide for interface modification.
software quality assurance are the criteria that are considered to evaluate the quality of a software. those criteria are:
Modularization is a technique to divide a software system into multiple discrete and independent modules, which are expected to be capable of carrying out task(s) independently. These modules may work as basic constructs for the entire software. Designers tend to design modules such that they can be executed and/or compiled separately and independently.
Modular design unintentionally follows the rules of ‘divide and conquer’ problem-solving strategy this is because there are many other benefits attached with the modular design of a software.
Advantage of modularization
- Smaller components are easier to maintain
- Program can be divided based on functional aspects
- Desired level of abstraction ca n be brought in the program
- Components with high cohesion can be re-used again.
- Concurrent execution can be made possible
- Desired from security aspect
Back in time, all softwares were meant to be executed sequentially. By sequential execution we mean that the coded instruction will be executed one after another implying only one portion of program being activated at any given time. Say, a software has multiple modules, then only one of all the modules can be found active at any time of execution.
In software design, concurrency is implemented by splitting the software into multiple independent units of execution, like modules and executing them in parallel. In other words, concurrency provides capability to the software to execute more than one part of code in parallel to each other.
It is necessary for the programmers and designers to recognize those modules, which can be made parallel execution.
The spell check feature in word processor is a module of software, which runs alongside the word processor itself.