Software Measurement Research
Software Measurement Research
Making software is a challenging thing to do. In case of any mistakes, it may cause a big loss to an individual or a company. Therefore, it is vital to consider its need and development purpose (Far, n.d., p. 3). Strategically, encouraging software measurement helps in avoiding excessive reviews of running software. The ideology behind software measurement is to avoid manipulation. As years go by, it is evident that man has acknowledged that computers are part of his life. It is used for survival and protection purposes. Apart from just maintaining software, one needs to be in control of the software. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to have a plan on how to carry out software measurement. For example, different softwares have been developed to help in money transfers. This involves banks and mobile phone users. A slight mistake indicated in the software could cause huge losses on either side. Some computer wizards can crack software for their benefits. This means that they will control the system and eventually they can bring down a company built for many years in five minutes.
Considering the above concept, it is important to identify the need for software measurement. In addition, it is worthwhile to understand the steps required for proper software measurement. For example, several questions can be focused on security purposes. This is the key responsibility for measurement. People usually want to benefit from other people’s sweat. To avoid such incidences, the call for security measures when developing software is vital. On the contrary, software measurement comes alongside four elements. These are characterization, evaluation, prediction and improvement These four elements will help an organization achieve its goals based on the level of urgency.
The quality of a product is determined by quantity of measurement. Involving the right figures will determine the outcome of a product. For example, some software developers have failed to characterize their aim for given software. Identifying a common factor that will intricate and sell itself is vital. It helps in defining itself and eventually stands out from a number of works that seem obsolete. After being able to characterize software, the need to evaluate it is obligatory. Through evaluation, it will involve several heads that have different opinions on its outlook. This means that, incorporating other ideas to the one in place will make a difference. The process of software measurement encourages ideas that are deemed applicable. Weighing this ideas eventually ascertain that one is better than the other is. In the end, it means that, more heads will be required to come up to such a conclusion. Prediction and improvement come hand in hand. In order to measure the quality of a product, certain predictions need to be made. This is a rough estimate of what is required to happen. Therefore, predictions determine the future outcome. With a rough ideology of what might be, incurred improvements are made Securing of data to avoid manipulation also helps to determine the quality of the products. In the end, something better comes of it.
When familiarizing with a situation, one has to have certain objectives in mind. In this case, software measurement entails quantity and quality. These key objective factors will determine the nature of the product. For example, to have a unique product that can be used by different organizations, will be determined by several measures. Amount of knowledge is one of the measures. Without knowledge, none of the ideas in place can be put together. This means that, one should also be organized in order to place ideas well. The benefits of objectivity are to organize ideas (Caldiera, and Basili, n.d., p. 4). In addition, it facilitates productivity to its fullest. This also includes characterization that simply indicates the nature of prudence implemented.
Several organizations that have adopted software measurement programs have agreeably considered that it is vital for security purposes. As earlier said, there are four major elements that should be considered when working on software measurement programs. These include: characterization, evaluation, prediction and improvement. Therefore, through characterization and evaluation, most companies have the managed to secure their incentives. The current software measurement program has been useful in certain ways. For example, increases revenues to organizations, secure the organizations information (Parkinson, Hierons, Lycett, & Norman, 2010, p. 5). It has also served as tool for determining an organizations future state. This means that engineers have put in mind that such a program is useful in protecting a company from collapsing. Therefore, more emphasis is put on security purposes ( Ikerionwu 2010, p. 121). Encouraging of password usage in the systems is vital. This can be done by allowing the user the mandate to change password at least four times in a fortnight. Under other occasions, the system should also allow the user to input secure passwords. For example, figure prints or specific eye contact. This will mean that only given figures print will allow. In the end, the organization will be in a position to know where a default lies in case of one occurs.
With the current technology in place, it is vital to consider how to improve the system in place. More computer and software wizards are in place and can do anything to manipulate the existing systems. In order to avoid such situations, the software engineers are encouraged to continue learning in order to come up with new ideologies (Wilson and Aranda, 2011, para. 3). Continuous process of learning creates chances of new ideas that can be implemented in the software program.
References
Caldiera, G. and Basili, V. R. (n.d.). Identifying and Qualifying Reusable Software Components
Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/journals/J41.pdf
Far, B. H. (n.d.). Global Based Software Measurement Framework (chapter 3). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/far/Lectures/SENG421/PDF/SENG421-03_handout.pdf
Ikerionwu, C. (2010, May). Cyclomatic Complexity as a Software Metric. International Journal
of Academic Research, 2(3).
Parkinson, S. T., Hierons, R. M., Lycett, M., & Norman, M. (2010). Practitioner-Based
Measurement: A Collaborative Approach. Communications of the ACM, 53(3).
SUMI. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://sumi.ucc.ie/index.html
Wilson, G and Aranda, J. (2011). As researchers investigate how software gets made, a
new empire for empirical research opens up. Retrieved January 24, 2013, from,
https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/empirical-software-engineering
