Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Software Process Evaluation: A Proposed Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a method that combines a qualitative assessment method based on CMMI to uncover improvement areas of an organization’s software process, and a quantitative approach to measure the software process productivity rate. The evaluation scope is first established: a list of projects and a list of CMMI key process areas to assess. The measurement of the productivity rate is obtained by measuring the functional size of the software developed and/or enhanced through projects, and then compared with the recorded project effort. The main reason for combining the approaches is to gain a deeper understanding of the organization’s software process by examining the software requirements artefacts, which reveals the weaknesses of the requirements engineering portion of the software process. As a proof of the concept, a field trial of the combined method has been applied successfully in an organization developing financial trading systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".