Procedimiento de análisis causal enfocado en pequeñas organizaciones desarrolladoras de software

Resumen

Las pequeñas organizaciones desarrolladoras de software no cuentan con recursos suficientes para adoptar prácticas de análisis causal, definidas en modelos como CMMI, debido a la complejidad y el costo de estas. Es importante detectar los defectos generados en el proceso de desarrollo y hacer un análisis sistemático para determinar sus causas; pero identificar esas causas principales es una labor difícil, y no lograrlo lleva a tomar decisiones erróneas que no resuelven la problemática presentada o, incluso, la empeoran. A causa de lo anterior, este artículo propone un procedimiento de análisis causal enfocado en pequeñas organizaciones (PAC-DS) que incorpora actividades para identificar las causas de los defectos. Tras su evaluación en un caso de estudio preliminar, se evidenció la utilidad del procedimiento.

Palabras clave

Análisis causal, Ingeniería de Software, Mejora de procesos software, Pequeñas organizaciones de desarrollo software

Citas

1. G. Czibula, Z. Marian, and I. G. Czibula, “Software defect prediction using relational association rule mining,” Inform. Sci. an Int. J., vol. 264, pp. 260-278, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.12.031
2. C.-P. Chang, and C.-P. Chu, “Defect prevention in software processes: An action-based approach,” J. of Syst. and Softw., vol. 80 (4), pp. 559-570, Apr. 2007. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.009
3. M. G. S. Gonçalves, “MiniDMAIC: An Approach for Causal Analysis and Resolution in Software Development Projects,” in Advances in Comput. and Inform. Sci. and Eng., 2008, pp. 166-171. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8741-7_30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8741-7_30
4. M. Kalinowski, G. H. Travassos, and D. N. Card, “Towards a Defect Prevention Based Process Improvement Approach,” in 34th Euromicro Conf. Softw. Eng. and Advanced Applicat., 2008, pp. 199-206. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2008.47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2008.47
5. D. N. Card, “Learning from Our Mistakes with Defect Causal Analysis,” IEEE Softw., vol. 15 (1), pp. 56-63, 1998. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/52.646883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/52.646883
6. M. Kalinowski, D. N. Card, and G. H. Travassos, “Evidence-Based Guidelines to Defect Causal Analysis,” IEEE Softw., vol. 29 (4), pp. 16-18, Jul. 2012. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.72
7. M. Leszak, D. E. Perry, and D. Stoll, “A case study in root cause defect analysis,” in Proc. 2000 Int. Conf. on Softw. Eng. (ICSE), 2000, pp. 428-437. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1145/337180.337232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/337180.337232
8. F. J. Pino, F. García, and M. Piattini, “Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review,” Softw. Quality J., vol. 16 (2), pp. 237-261, 2008. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-007-9038-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-007-9038-z
9. F. J. Pino, M. Piattini, and G. H. Travassos, “Managing and developing distributed research projects in software engineering by means of action-research,” Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia, no. 68, pp. 61-74, 2013.
10. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG), 2011. Available: http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.
11. S. Arreche, and S. Matalonga, “Tools for defect causal analysis: A systematic literature review,” in 7th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), 2012, pp. 1-7.
12. T. O. A. Lehtinen, et al., “A tool supporting root cause analysis for synchronous retrospectives in distributed software teams,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 56 (4), pp. 408-437, Apr. 2014. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.01.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.01.004
13. T. O. A. Lehtinen, M. V. Mäntylä, and J. Vanhanen, “Development and evaluation of a lightweight root cause analysis method (ARCA method) – Field studies at four software companies,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 53 (10), pp. 1045-1061, Oct. 2011. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.05.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.05.005
14. P. Jalote, and N. Agarwal, “Using defect analysis feedback for improving quality and productivity in iterative software development,” in Proc. 3rd International Conference on Information and Communications Technology, 2007, pp. 703-713.
15. C. R. Nelms, “The problem with root cause analysis,” in 8th IEEE Human Factors and Power Plants and HPRCT 13th Annual Meeting, Aug. 2007, pp. 253-258. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/HFPP.2007.4413215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HFPP.2007.4413215
16. H. Jabrouni, et al., “Continuous improvement through knowledge-guided analysis in experience feedback,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 24 (8), pp. 1419-1431, Dec. 2011. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2011.02.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2011.02.015
17. N. Honda, and S. Yamada, “‘Defect Root-Cause Analysis and 1+n Procedure’ technique to improve software quality,” International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, vol. 3 (2), pp. 111-121, Jun. 2012. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-012-0118-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-012-0118-5
18. K. Y. Zúñiga, “Procedimiento de análisis causal enfocado en pequeñas organizaciones de desarrollo software,” Thesis, Universidad del Cauca, Popayán, Colombia, 2015.
19. R. K. Yin, Case study research: Design and methods, 5th ed. Newbury Park CA: Sage publications, 2014.
20. Project Management Institute, "Project risk management," in A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 4th ed. Newtown Square PA: Project Management Institute, Inc., 2008, pp. 281.