This issue begins with Tom Gilb’s “Risk Management: A Practical Toolkit for Identifying, Analyzing, and Coping with Project Risks.” He describes a set of systems engineering activities to identify anything that can lead to negative results and then to remove, reduce, or control such deviations from project requirements. The quantification of all performance and resource attributes permits unambiguous statement of the current and required levels for all these critical factors. Gilb also presents impact estimation as a means of assessing strategies for achieving requirements in spite of risks.
“Selecting Tools for Software Quality Management” by Luis Mendoza, Maria Pérez, Teresita Rojas, Anna Grimán, and Luisa De Luca describes investigations on behalf of Information Systems Management of Banco Central de Venezuela. The organization was seeking tool support to improve its software development processes. The authors used an evaluation method (Feature Analysis Case Study) to identify a set of metrics to provide objective guidelines for the selection of tools. The extensive evaluation of nine commercially available tools was driven by priorities established based on organizational needs and standardized the requirements expectation.
Dave Miller claims “Software Quality Requires Professionalism and Fortitude” and then proceeds to examine the enforcement responsibilities that often fall on software quality professionals, not the least due to “developers’ disdain for process management [and] managers’ timidity in enforcing processes.” Some efforts of quality engineers can be directed toward influencing developers to use better practices. However, the author asserts, there are times when their only ethical role is as enforcer of discipline, if necessary to meet the organization’s obligations to its stakeholders.
“The Impact of National Cultural Factors on the Effectiveness of Process Improvement Methods: The Third Dimension” is both an overview of various cultural factors and a call for additional research. Miklos Biró, Richard Messnarz, and Alfred Davison identify a cultural dimension to add to the process dimension and the capability dimension of the CMMI Continuous Representation. The widespread applicability of process improvement frameworks may well depend on adapting generic practices to different cultural environments. The authors urge an exchange of ideas and experiences to raise understanding of how differences in value systems must be factored into process improvement efforts.
Software Quality Professional
Editorial/Production
Editor-in-Chief
Taz Daughtrey
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, Virginia
sqpeditor@aol.com
Associate Editors
Sue Carroll
SAS
Cary, North Carolina
Paul R. Croll
Computer Sciences Corporation
King George, Virginia
Beth Layman
Teraquest
Melbourne Beach, Florida
Stanley H. Levinson
Framatome ANP, Inc.
Lynchburg, Virginia
John Pustaver
SWQuality, Inc.
Sudbury, Massachusetts
Publisher
William Tony
Manuscript Coordinator
Dave Nelsen
Copy Editors
Leigh Ann Klaus
Kris McEachern
Production Administrator
Cathy Schnackenberg
Graphic Designer
Mary Uttech
Digital Production Specialist
Laura Franceschi
