Explicit specification framework to manage software project effectively

Kamal Uddin Sarker; Aziz Deraman; Raza Hasan; Ali Abbas

doi:10.17485/IJST/v13i36.1244

Article

Explicit specification framework to manage software project effectively

VIEWS 2436
PDF 338

Indian Journal of Science and Technology

DOI: 10.17485/IJST/v13i36.1244

Year: 2020, Volume: 13, Issue: 36, Pages: 3785-3800

Original Article

Explicit specification framework to manage software project effectively

Kamal Uddin Sarker¹,^2*, Aziz Deraman¹, Raza Hasan³, Ali Abbas²

¹Faculty of Ocean Engineering Technology and informatics, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,Malaysia
²Department of Computing, Middle East College, Muscat, Oman
³Institute of Informatics and Communication, Malaysian University of science and technology, Selangor, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author
Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Received Date:28 June 2020, Accepted Date:19 September 2020, Published Date:12 October 2020

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Objectives: This research addresses the causal relationship among processes, tasks, resources, and stakeholders of the software projects to improve the success rate that is 31% only now (CHAOS report 2019). Methods: A software project management framework is developed based on the findings of an empirical study on recent commonly used methodologies and root cause analysis on the reasons for project failure. The causeeffect relationship is prioritized by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to develop the Explicit Specification Framework (ESF). The framework is tied to the pinpointing with ontology for formal presentation, descriptive logic for unambiguous information specification, and ikigai for decision-making.Findings: The proposed framework is evaluated by a group of experts and their average scope is evaluated by a group comparison mechanism called Grey Rational Analysis (GRA). The evaluation process considered 6 parameters and compared it with 4 commonly used project management approaches. The highest GRA rank is found for the average of six distinct parameters though it is comparatively more complex for explicit documentation. The three-layer architecture of ESF remarks on roles, functions, and respective stakeholders in each layer presented by a comprehensive comparison study with literature and found that it enhances formal practice, sustainability, and management capability. ESF is easy to implement for distributed project management and improving automation facilities in the software industries.Novelty/Application: Artificial intelligence, the Internet of things, and big data would be common elements of a software project and ESF would meet the demand for project information specification, management, and control.

Keywords: Software Project Management; Software Quality Control; methodology; multi- criteria decision making; structural educational modeling; ontology

References

Laplante P. What Every Engineer Should Know about Software Engineering. Boca Raton. 2007.
Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK Version 3), 2014” (pdf). www.swebok.org. IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved. 2016.
Abran A;, Moore JW, Bourque P;, Dupuis R;, Tripp LL. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE. 2004.
The Standish Group International CHAOS Report. 2015. Available from: https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2015-Final.pdf
2017 HKMH, Dataset. Dataset: Evidence-based Software Portfolio Management (EBSPM) Research Repository. TU Delft. 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4121/uuid:42fd1be1-325f-47a4ba39-31af35ca7f75
Sarker KU, Deraman AB, Hasan R. Descriptive Logic for Software Engineering Ontology: Aspect Software Quality Control. In: 4th International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCOINS). (pp. 1-5) 2018.
Bannerman PL. Defining project success: a multilevel framework. Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference: Defining the Future of Project Management, Warsaw, Poland. Warsaw, Poland. Newtown Square, PA. Project Management Institute. 2008. Available from: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/defining-project-success-multilevel-framework-7096
Gruber T. Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. Int. J. Hum. Comp. Stud. 1995;43:907–928.
Uschold M, Gruninger M. Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 1996;11(2):93–136. doi: 10.1017/s0269888900007797
Gomez-Perez A, Corcho O. Ontology languages for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems. 2002;17(1):54–60. doi: 10.1109/5254.988453
OWL 2 web ontology language. 2017.
Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics. 2000;25(1):25–29. doi: 10.1038/75556
Jonquet C. AgroPortal: A vocabulary and ontology repository for agronomy. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2018;144:126–143.
Abburu S, Golla SB. Ontology-Driven Knowledge-Based Health-Care System an Emerging Area- Challenges and Opportunities - Indian Scenario. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry. In: ISPRS Technical Commission VIII Symposium. (pp. 9-12) 2014.
Fluit C, Sabou M, Harmelen FV. Ontology-based information visualization: toward semantic web applications. Springer. 2006.
Pickert G. Einfuhrung in Ontologien. 2016. Available from: http://www.dbis.informatik.hu-berlin.de/dbisold/lehre/WS0203/SemWeb/artikel/2/PickertOntologienfinal
Cherix D, Usbeck R, Both A, Lehmann J, Presutti V, Blomqvist E, et al. Lessons learned - the case of CROCUS: cluster-based ontology data cleansing. In: P, IaT, A., eds. The Semantic Web: ESWC 2014 Satellite Events. (Vol. 8798, pp. 14-24) Springer. 2014.
Sarker KU, Deraman A. Design Aspects of Near Future Soft Computing. International Journal of Electronics Communication and Computer Engineering. 2017;8(5):2249–071.
Sarker DKU, Deraman RA, Hasan. Kids’ Smart Campus Ontology to Retrieve Interest. In: Green Soft Computing, Conference: ICEL3S2018. (pp. 462-470) 2018.
Sarker KU, Bin Deraman A, Hasan R, Mahmood S, Abbas A, Sohail M. Kids’ Smart Campus Ontology to Retrieve Interest. In: 4th MEC International Conference on Big Data and Smart City (ICBDSC). (pp. 1-4) 2019.
Kamiya M. Ikigai-ni-tsuite. Tokyo, Japan. MisuzuShyobou. 1966.
Kumano M. K., ed. Ikigai-keisei-no-shinrigaku [A psychology of ikigai development. Tokyo, Japan. 2012.
Kumano M. Ikigai-keisei-moderu-no-sokutei-shyakudo-no-sakusei: Ikigai-purosesu shyakudo-to-ikigai-jyoutai-shyakudo [Construction of scales for the ikigai development model: The scales for ikigai processes and ikigai states. The Bulletin of Education. 2013;39:1–11.
Schwalbe K. Project management approach to IT projects. Tehran, Institute of. Tehran University Press. 2010.
Martin P, Tate K. Project management, translated by Mohsen Zokayee. Tehran. Adineh press. 2003.
Tilmann G, Weinberger J. Technology never fails, but project can. Baseline. 2004;1(26):28. doi: 10.1515/gpr.2004.1.4.182
Klein HK, Meyers MD. MIS Quarterly. 1999;23:67–94.
Mandal A, SC. Identifying the Reasons for Software Project Failure and Some of their Proposed Remedial through BRIDGE Process Models. International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering. 2015;(1).
O’Neill RP, TD, Krall E. Recent ISO Software Enhancements of the Last Decades and Future Software And Modeling Plans. 2011. Available from: https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/rto/rto-iso-soft-2011.pdf
Bergel A, Denier S, Ducasse S, Laval J, Bellinguard F, Vaillergues P, et al. SQUALE - Software QUALity Enhancement. In: 13th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. (pp. 285-288) 2009.
Kline R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford. 2011;p. 978–979.
Salkind NJ. Intelligence Tests". Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. 2007. 10.4135/9781412952644.n220
Boslaugh S;, Mcnutt LA. Structural Equation Modeling". Encyclopedia of Epidemiology. 2008. 10.4135/9781412953948.n443
Shelley MC. Structural Equation Modeling". Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration. 2006. 10.4135/9781412939584.n544
Zha XF, Sriram RD, Fernandez MG, Mistree F. Knowledge-intensive collaborative decision support for design processes: A hybrid decision support model and agent. Computers in Industry. 2008;59(9):905–922. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2008.07.009
Sahin Z, Yenmez AA, Erbas AK. Relational Understanding of the Derivative Concept through Mathematical Modeling: A Case Study. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2015;11(1):177–188. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1149a
Hsu MW. An Analysis of Intention to Use in Innovative Product Development Model through TAM Model. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. 2016;12(3):487–501.
Zhong XM, Fan KK. A New Perspective on Design Education: A “Creative Production Manufacturing Model” in “The Maker Movement” Context. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. 2016;12(5):1389–1398.
Kaplan D. Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions . (2). 2008.
Yassien E. Software Projects Success by Objectives. Journal of Management Research. 2017;10(1):46. doi: 10.5296/jmr.v10i1.10149
Brachman RJ, Mcguinness DL, Patel-Schneider PF, Resnick LA, Borgida A. Living with CLASSIC: When and how to use KL-ONE-like language. In: JFS., ed. Principles of Semantic Networks. (pp. 401-456) Morgan Kaufmann. 1991.
Mende T, Koschke R. Eﬀort-Aware Defect Prediction Models. Proceedings of the 2010 14th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. CSMR’10. 2010;p. 107–116.
Peyton T. The Future of Work Jobs and Skills in 2030. 2014. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobs-and-skills-in-2030
Kearney AT, A. Technology and Innovation for the Future of Production: Accelerating Value Creation. 2017. Available from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_Technology_Innovation_Future_of_Production_2017.pdf
K, Bruel. Beyond tomorrow Scenarios 2030: The future of product development, Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies. A/S Skodsborgvej 307 DK-2850 Nærum Denmark. Sound & Vibration Measurement . 2017.
Lehtinen TOA, Mäntylä MV, Vanhanen J, Itkonen J, Lassenius C. Perceived causes of software project failures – An analysis of their relationships. Information and Software Technology. 2014;56(6):623–643. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.01.015
Verner JM, Abdullah LM. Exploratory case study research: Outsourced project failure. Information and Software Technology. 2012;54(8):866–886. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2011.11.001
WG. Success Rate by Software Development Methodology in Information Technology Project Management: A Quantitive Analysis. (Vol. 3590342) 2013.
Pardo C, Pino FJ, Garcia F, Baldassarre MT, Piattini M. From chaos to the systematic harmonization of multiple reference models: A harmonization framework applied in two case studies. Journal of Systems and Software. 2013;86(1):125–143. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.07.072
Bajnaid NO, Benlamri R, Pakstas A, SS. An Ontological Approach to Model Software Quality Assurance Knowledge Domain. Lecture Notes on Software Engineering. 2016;4(3).
ZA M, A S, S C, HM M, RN. Challenges and limitations in secure software development adoption-A qualitative analysis in Malaysian software industry prospect. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2020;13(26). doi: 10.17485/IJST/v13i26.848
T D. Controlling Software Projects: Management, Measurement & Estimation. Yourdon Press. 1982.
Buglione L. Some thoughts on quality models: evolution and perspectives. Acta IMEKO. 2015;4(3).

Copyright

© 2020 Sarker et al.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Published By Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee).