Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1812.09112

A Mapping Study on Software Process Self-Assessment Methods

Abstract

Assessing processes is one of the best ways for an organization to start a software process improvement program. An alternative for organizations seeking for lighter assessments methods is to perform self-assessments, which can be carried out by an organization to assess its own process. In this context, the question that arises is which software process self-assessment methods exist and which kind of support they provide? To answer this question, a mapping study on software process self-assessment methods was performed. As result, a total of 33 methods were identified and analyzed, synthesizing information on their measurement framework, process reference model and assessment process. We observed that most self-assessment methods are based on consolidated models, such as CMMI or ISO/IEC 15504 with a trend to develop self-assessment methods specifically for SMEs. In general, they use simplified assessment processes, focusing on data collection and analysis. Most of the methods propose to collect data through questionnaires that are answered by managers or other team members related to the process being assessed. However, we noted a lack of information on how most of the assessment methods (AMs) have been developed and validated, which leaves their validity questionable. The results of our study may help practitioners, interested in conducting software process self-assessments, to choose a self-assessment method. This research is also relevant for researchers, as it provides a better understanding of the existing self-assessment methods and their strengths and weaknesses.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thaísa C. Lacerda, Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim, Jean C. R. Hauck. 2018-12-21. A Mapping Study on Software Process Self-Assessment Methods. https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.09112

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Combining Type Inference and Automated Unit Test Generation for Python

Automated unit test generation is an established research field that has so far focused on statically-typed programming languages. The lack of type information in dynamically-typed programming languages, such as Python, inhibits test generators, which heavily rely on information about parameter and return types of functions to select suitable arguments when constructing test cases. Since automated test generators inherently rely on frequent execution of candidate tests, we make use of these frequent executions to address this problem by introducing type tracing, which extracts type-related information during execution and gradually refines the available type information. We implement type tracing as an extension of the Pynguin test-generation framework for Python, allowing it (i) to infer parameter types by observing how parameters are used during runtime, (ii) to record the types of values that function calls return, and (iii) to use this type information to increase code coverage. The approach leads to up to 87.8 % more branch coverage, improved mutation scores, and to type information of similar quality to that produced by other state-of-the-art type-inference tools.

cs.SE

MigrateLib: a tool for end-to-end Python library migration

Library migration is the process of replacing a library with a similar one in a software project. Manual library migration is time consuming and error prone, as it requires developers to understand the Application Programming Interfaces (API) of both libraries, map equivalent APIs, and perform the necessary code transformations. Due to the difficulty of the library migration process, most of the existing automated techniques and tooling stop at the API mapping stage or support a limited set of libraries and code transformations. In this paper, we develop an end-to-end solution that can automatically migrate code between any arbitrary pair of Python libraries that provide similar functionality. Due to the promising capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation and transformation, we use LLMs as the primary engine for migration. Before building the tool, we first study the capabilities of LLMs for library migration on a benchmark of 321 real-world library migrations. We find that LLMs can effectively perform library migration, but some post-processing steps can further improve the performance. Based on this, we develop MigrateLib, a command line application that combines the power of LLMs, static analysis, and dynamic analysis to provide accurate library migration. We evaluate MigrateLib on 717 real-world Python applications that are not from our benchmark. We find that MigrateLib can migrate 32% of the migrations with complete correctness. Of the remaining migrations, only 14% of the migration-related changes are left for developers to fix for more than half of the projects.

cs.SE

Constraint Decay: The Fragility of LLM Agents in Backend Code Generation

Large Language Model (LLM) agents demonstrate strong performance in autonomous code generation under loose specifications. However, production-grade software requires strict adherence to structural constraints, such as architectural patterns, databases, and object-relational mappings. Existing benchmarks often overlook these non-functional requirements, rewarding functionally correct but structurally arbitrary solutions. We present a systematic study evaluating how well agents handle structural constraints in multi-file backend generation. By fixing a unified API contract across 80 greenfield generation tasks and 20 feature-implementation tasks spanning eight web frameworks, we isolate the effect of structural complexity using a dual evaluation with end-to-end behavioral tests and static verifiers. Our findings reveal a phenomenon of constraint decay: as structural requirements accumulate, agent performance exhibits a substantial decline. Evaluated configurations lose 27.28 points on average in assertion pass rates from baseline to fully specified tasks. Framework sensitivity analysis exposes performance disparities: mid-tier models succeed in minimal, explicit frameworks (e.g., Flask) but perform substantially worse on average in convention-heavy environments (e.g., FastAPI, Django). Finally, error analysis identifies data-layer defects (e.g., incorrect query composition and ORM runtime violations) as the leading root causes. This work highlights that jointly satisfying functional and structural requirements remains a key open challenge for coding agents.

cs.SE