Iraj.in MAPPING AND ANALYSIS OF AGILE QUALITY ASSURANCE METRICS
International Journal of Advanced Computational Engineering and Networking, ISSN: 2320-2106, http://iraj.in Volume-5, Issue-1, Jan.-2017 MAPPING AND ANALYSIS OF AGILE QUALITY ASSURANCE METRICS 1 GEETIKA RANI, 2JAGPUNEET KAUR BAJWA Department of Computer Science, Punjabi University, Patiala Abstract- In modern days, many software development companies are using agile methodologies like scrum, extreme programming, lean software development etc. rather than traditional software development approaches. These agile practitioners claim that they had less amount of failure of projects as well as software product quality has been immensely improved as compared to traditional development. Heavy weight methodologies had many quality assurance techniques but these techniques were more oriented towards heavy reporting and these techniques had a large number of inspection methods where as agile methodologies are known for their built in quality assurance activities and management system [11] Many organizations are shifting towards agile software development techniques as compare to heavy weight practices. But in this scenario, still there are issues related with the quality. This systematic literature review aims at identifying key factors of agile quality assurance and the literature review associated with the quality assurance indicators of light weight methodologies. Keywords- Agile methodologies, Quality Assurance factors and Software Quality, assurance practices so that product quality will not be at stake [42]. I. INTRODUCTION Agile methodologies have played a crucial role in software development success in recent years as compared to heavy weight methodologies. Because many organization report the inability of traditional development methods to handle the scaling as well as increased software complexity during software delivery and it affects the quality aspects so there is an urgent need to respond quickly to these functions and problems so that projects can achieve their goals in terms of cost, time and quality. As our research aim is to look for quality factors of agile software development, this paper has put more stress on quality metrics and to analyze them in order to provide better outcomes. In traditional development techniques like waterfall model, spiral model, incremental model etc., at the end of every phase, there were reviews like design review, code review and inspections so that errors can be identified as early as possible and can be corrected to improve the quality of product. Now, many organizations have shifted from traditional software development to modern development, in this case traditional quality assurance techniques are not suitable for modern development as modern development have goals which are iteration oriented and traditional development was phase oriented. Agile software development gives more stress on collocation of teams as well as face to face communication for iterations & daily team activities. So, there is an urgent need to collaborate the quality assurance activities or techniques with daily team activities so that product quality can be improved .Many large organizations are adopting agile methodologies because these methodologies support flexibility, welcome changes at any stage, light documentation and the challenge here is for large organizations to achieve these features as well as to follow quality II. METHOD This study is based on the literature review so that critical factors can be identified which will enhance quality and productivity of the software. For this review, a number of steps have been followed [82]. These Research Questions are as follows: RQ1. How much literature review has been done since 1990s? RQ2. What are the critical success factors in terms of quality found in these studies? RQ3.Are these methodologies? factors applicable to agile III. SEARCH PROCESS The search process of research papers and journal articles was a manual search criterion. The search keywords for the articles were 1. Critical factors of quality AND Importance in Agile 2. Quality Assurance AND Methods of Agile 3. Metrics of quality AND Agile quality assurance 4. Agile AND Quality 5. Agile Quality AND Software Development 6. Agile quality AND Agile methods The search keywords for agile particulars have been merged by using the Boolean ‘‘OR” operator, which ensures that a particular only had to include any one of the terms to be retrieved. We searched for: 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 Mapping and Analysis of Agile Quality Assurance Metrics 15
International Journal of Advanced Computational Engineering and Networking, ISSN: 2320-2106, http://iraj.in IV. INCLUSION CRITERION AND Volume-5, Issue-1, Jan.-2017 a) Do the studies included in literature review properly describe quality factors? b) Does the included literature contain the relevant studies on quality factors of agile software development? c) The inclusion and exclusion criterion of studies are relevant or not? d) Do the reviewers properly evaluate the quality of the studies which have been included in the literature process? EXCLUSION The research papers for the study were selected on the basis of the quality factors which are important in terms of agile software development. The papers which have quality factors but were based on traditional software development were rejected. The papers which did not include quality parameters have been discarded. Below is the figure that depicts the criterion of review. Three stage approach has been followed to carry out the review. VI. DATA COLLECTION The critical factors have been identified from the relevant studies of the literature and these were thoroughly seen in order to find quality success factors. Data have been collected from different journals like IEEE Xplore, Springer Link, ACMDigital Library, Science Direct-Elsevier, DOAJ, IJSE, IGI, IOSR, Wiley Inter Science Journal Finder, IJCA. VII. SEARCH RESULTS Initially we identified 106 articles in stage one, on the basis of keywords defined above. But in Stage two, few papers were discarded based on their titles and we left with 82 articles. Then in stage three, few more papers were discarded and we now have 66 studies in all. Fig.1 Three Stage Filtration Process In stage one, studies related to the area have been identified from large databases on the basis of keywords. In stage two, we discarded studies on the basis of their abstracts which do not contain agile and its quality factors. In stage three, we filtered studies on the basis of their main focus and abstracts which were really not about agile development and its quality. VIII. LITERATURE REVIEW The table below represents the general information about the papers which we have taken during the SLR process. All the papers have been collected keeping in mind the objectives of our research, so that it can provide specific information to the research questions. We have divided the studies into five parts to understand the different aspects of it clearly. V. QUALITY ASSESSMENT The literature review was evaluated on the following questions of quality assessment. These were:Table I. INFORMATION ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF COLLECTED PAPER Mapping and Analysis of Agile Quality Assurance Metrics 16
International Journal of Advanced Computational Engineering and Networking, ISSN: 2320-2106, http://iraj.in Mapping and Analysis of Agile Quality Assurance Metrics 17 Volume-5, Issue-1, Jan.-2017
International Journal of Advanced Computational Engineering and Networking, ISSN: 2320-2106, http://iraj.in Volume-5, Issue-1, Jan.-2017 IX. EXCLUDED LITERATURE The papers which excluded while collecting the data for research in stage three are as below: Table II. INFORMATION REGARDING FILTERED PAPERS studies explains the various agile approaches and how they are helpful in providing quality better. It talks about the methodologies of agile individually and about their variants also. Then the third group speaks on gathering of various agile quality metrics using surveys or other means of different agile projects. It also talks about factor of risks or various issues related to agile development and their management. The fourth group describes the different tools which are used in measuring the quality factors of agile and their effects on the software product. Then the last group i.e. the fifth group of studies contain some detailed analysis on agile. It provides black box view X. DISCUSSION This Literature review identified a number of studies or articles but keeping in mind the concerned area of agile some studies were excluded. The studies which are included as per criterion defined above have been grouped into different parts to extract the right amount of information out of it. We identified five major groups related to agile and its quality assurance to understand the facts clearly and advantageously. The first group describes the overall quality improvement of agile software product using different approaches of agile. The second group of Mapping and Analysis of Agile Quality Assurance Metrics 18
International Journal of Advanced Computational Engineering and Networking, ISSN: 2320-2106, http://iraj.in of agile which is useful for every individual concerned to agile quality assurance. Volume-5, Issue-1, Jan.-2017 has combined the metric with method i.e. GQM (Goal Question Metric) and PSM (Professional Scrum Master in which first it takes sensible metrics of agile development into its account and then apply fuzzy set theory for evaluation [43]. A. Agile, its methodologies and effects on software being developed The overall quality assurance abilities of different agile methodologies and their frequencies has been analyzed as less attention was paid to them in past and an overall image of quality assurance practices were missing[5][6].The answer to the question of different agile approaches for the enhancement of software development has been provided. Also provides the valid points to consider the quality parameters [13]. Data have been collected from different sources and some parameters of quality have been extracted which have shown relationship between metrics and adopted approach of agile development [56]. Mapping of the issues of initial research setup has been done in the quality assurance phase which results in remarkable results [24]. The four step process has been carried out to reduce the challenges of integrating quality assurance to the agile teams in various organizations; moreover it provides the mapping of QA with business requirements [23]. The research based on survey has shown that agile practices are well equipped with quality management system and helps in identifying the factors which improve the quality [43]. C. Agile Quality Parameters This particular part is about the metrics, factors or parameters of quality measurement in agile. Study shows that in many big organizations there are two most important factors cost and timeliness which are considered first than any other factor and it is easy to achieve it with agile . Prototype for the cost management tool also has been provided [4] [57]. The authors explained ANP approach which is a decision making process used for synthesizing the relationships and module dependencies over and along hierarchies [7]. It has shown us how agile approaches are used in complex adaptive systems and make them simple, also provided with some key points on it [10]. This study has come to the point after doing critical survey all across the world over one hundred nine agile projects and given three critical factors of quality which are conveyance strategy, agile software developing techniques and team ability [14]. Similarly ten metrics on the basis of survey have been found and twenty other metrics have been collected after conducting survey [61][60][58].The next group of studies highlighted factors which are required while attaining success and these are flexibility, increased productivity, early detection of feasibility and error, project control and knowledge transfer. These factors widely improve the productivity and quality [28][29][31]. Documentation and human factors also considered as important factors of quality [33][52]. Factor based analysis has been carried out to measure the metrics by various authors and to extract the parameters which are responsible the most for quality aspects. Factors based on their type, level, period and scope have been identified to provide better understanding [46][32]. Information has also been provided about risk management and it has been collected from different journals. Agile programming and its methods define the ordered set of control strategies and helps in real time implementation of systems rather than creating issues. They overcome the risk as it encountered. It has provided the knowledge of how to better handle unavoidable modifications all through the engineering process of software. Agile development combines innovative teamwork with exceptional focus on effectiveness and maneuverability. Growth of agile projects in large organizations like Yahoo! has been improved and provided efficient results for minor changes [1][3]][20]. B. Different Agile Approaches used for improvement of quality Moving to our next point these group of studies have provided us information regarding agile approaches. Refactoring approach has been presented with its quality measures in order to support agile software development using a measurement tool [18]. The next study has thrown light on XP and Scrum approaches of agile and their improvement factors to quality. This study has been grouped into four parts and has provided the detailed information about the benefits and limitations of it [19]. The authors have defined Safe Scrum which is a variant of XP and scrum which can be used to handle critical software [65]. According to the authors of this study software quality is the most important aspect from the point of customers, development team, sponsors and software QA team. They have compared the traditional development to light weight methodologies and focused on XP [27].The authors of this study provide a better way to overcome the issues and to ensure the internal software quality. They introduced the 3C approach which is a variant of continuous integration. It adds continuous measurement and continuous improvement as successive Activities to CI and establishes “Metric-based Quality-Gates” for quality assurance of agile. It was developed and proven in “Agile Maintenance and Evolution Project” for the Automotive Industry at T-Systems International – a large German ICT company [40]. The study has discussed about another variant of agile practices. It D. Tool Implementation Information from the review has been collected about the various tools which are used to measure the agile performance and predicts the quality of the system to Mapping and Analysis of Agile Quality Assurance Metrics 19
International Journal of Advanced Computational Engineering and Networking, ISSN: 2320-2106, http://iraj.in be engineered. Tools have been defined for measuring the quality [11]. Some authors collected the present thinking of agile metrics and proposed fundamental tools to measure them [12][37]. Tools have been proposed for estimating the time to build software and to measure its ideal engineering and story points [63]. Some tools combine the current existing approaches and provided variant of these [15][19][43]. Agile based analytical tool 4-DAT is developed and applied to different products [21]. Few authors outline the model for agile software quality and its management [22]. Volume-5, Issue-1, Jan.-2017 REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] E. Detailed Analysis The last point of our review talks about some detailed analysis of agile which are carried by different authors. Detailed information on agile has been provided in terms of where it is used, which practices of agile have been used the most, how agile is contributing to the research field and about tools of different practices of agile[39]. They have examined the current state of agile metrics, gathered qualitative information of different from different stakeholders, adoption of metrics into agile world, how they affect performances of software, problems and challenges faced by agile, various types of studies on agile and how they met the defined criteria for software [41][45]. Some authors explained about the agile and quality, what kind of work is done for attaining quality and provided with some examples [48][44]. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK [12] [13] From the above discussion we reached to the conclusion that traditional/ heavy weight software development, the quality checks were performed at last stages of the software product release, when doing changes in software at later stages resulted in more costs and more time while in agile development, working products are released at every iteration, so quality checks were performed at each iteration. Now, it became important that the quality assurance techniques had to bring quality product at each iteration because working products were given to customers at each iteration so that proper feedback can taken on time and timely changes could be performed. For doing quality assurance, some critical factors have to be identified in agile software development so that high product quality can be achieved and which further can derive project success and productivity. We have identified nine factors from the longitudinal study which are correctness, testability, changeability, time, cost/budget, portability, reusability, flexibility and interoperability. These factors impact quality but its validation will be performed using survey and data analysis. Also their measures have been taken from literature to justify effects on quality of agile software. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Gowdy J. and Rizzi A.A. (1999,May) Programming in the Architecture for Agile Assembly, Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation Detroit, Michigan. Plessel T. and Martin L. (2000) Data Model Project: Quality Assurance Plan, ancePlan.html Highsmith J. and Cockburn A. (2001),Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation. IEEE Computer Society/ACM joint task force on Computing Curricula. Lindvall M. et.al (2004), Agile Software Development in Large Organizations.In the IEEE Computer Society. Huo M., Verner J., Zhu L., Ali M.,(2004) Software Quality and Agile Methods. Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications(IEEE). Timperi P. O. (2004) An overview of Quality Assurance Practices in Agile Methodologies. T-76.650 Seminar in Software Engineering, Spring 2004. Agarwal A., Shankar R. and Tiwari M. K.(2006) Modelling the Metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: An ANP based approach. European Journal of Operational Research 173 (2006) 211–225. Ambler S.,(2005) Quality in an Agile World. SQP VOL. 7, NO. 4/ 2005, ASQ Bass L.(2006) Principles for Designing Software Architecture to Achieve Quality Attribute requirements. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Research Management and Applications (SERA’06) IEEE. Meso P. and Jain R.(2006) Agile Software Development: Adaptive System Principles and Best Practices. In Information system Management Summer 2006. Mnkandla, E., & Dwolatzky, B. (2006, October). Defining agile software quality assurance. In Software Engineering Advances, International Conference on (pp. 36-36). IEEE. Hartmann D., Dymond R.(2006), Appropriate Agile Measurement. In Agile Conference, IEEE. Abdullah S.S., Holcombe M. and Gheorge M.(2006),The Impact of an Agile methodology on the well being of development teams. In Empirical Software Engineering March 2006 Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 143–167, Springer. Chow T. and Cao D.(2007) A Survey study of critical success factors in Agile Software Projects. The Journal of Systems and Software 81 (2008) 961–971. Mc Caffey F., Taylor S.P. and Coleman G.(2007) Adept: A Unified assessment Method for small software companies. Published by the IEEE Computer Society. Abbas N. (2007) Agile software assurance: An Emperical study. In First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement IEEE. Qumer A. and Henderson –Sellers B. (2008) A Framework to support the evaluation, adoption and improvement of agile methods in practice. In The Journal of Systems and Software 81 (2008) 1899–1919( ELSEVIER). Kunz M.(2008) Software Metrics for Agile software development. Software Engineering, 2008. ASWEC 2008. 19th Australian Conference IEEE Dyba T. and Dingsoyer T.(2008) Empirical studies of agile software development:A systematic review. Information and Software Technology 50 (2008) 833– 859(ELSEVIER). Benefield G.(2008) Rolling out agile in a large enterprise. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences IEEE. Qumer A. and Henderson-sellers B. (2008) An Evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering. In Information and Software Technology 50 (2008) 280–295 (ELSEVIER). Kurtz M. , Dumke R.R., Zenker N.(2008), “Software metrics for Agile Software Development” ,19th Australian Conference on Software Engineerring,IEEE. Mapping and Analysis of Agile Quality Assurance Metrics 20
International Journal of Advanced Computational Engineering and Networking, ISSN: 2320-2106, Volume-5, Issue-1, Jan.-2017 http://iraj.in [23] Opelt K. and Beeson T.(2008) Agile Teams require agile [39] Hellmann T.D., Sharma A., Ferreira J. and Maurer QA: How to make it work, an experience report. Agile F.(2012) Agile Testing : Past, Present and Future. Agile 2008 Conference(IEEE). Conference (AGILE), 2012. [24] Beckhaus A., Karg M.L. and Hanselmann G.(2009) [40] Janus A., Dumke R., Schmietendrof A. and Jager J.(2012) Applicability of software reliability growth modeling in The 3C Approach for Agile Quality Assurance. Emerging the quality assurance phase of a large business software Trends in Software Metrics (WETSoM), 2012 3rd vendor. Computer Software and Applications Conference, International Workshop(IEEE). 2009. COMPSAC '09. 33rd Annual IEEE International. [41] Oza N. and Korkala M. (2012) Lessons Learned in [25] Misra C. S., Kumar V. and Kumar U.(2009) Identifying Implementing Agile Software Development Metrics. UK someimportant success factors in adopting agile software Academy for Information Systems Conference development practices. In The Journal of Systems and Proceedings 2012. Software 82 (2009) 1869–1890 (ELSEVIER). [42] Bhasin S(2012) Quality Assurance in agile: a study [26] Peterson K. and Wohlin C. (2009) A comparison of Issues towards achieving excellence. AGILE India (AGILE and Advantages in Agile and Incremental development INDIA), 2012(IEEE). between state of the art and an industrial case. Journal of [43] Sedehi H. and Martano G. (2012) Metrics to evaluate and Systems and Software Volume 82, Issue 9, September Monitor Agile based Software development projects. 2009, Pages 1479–1490 (ELSEVIER). Software Measurement and the 2012 Seventh International [27] Xu B.(2009) Towards high quality software development Conference on Software Process and Product with extreme programming methodology: practices from Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA), 2012 Joint real software projects. In Management and Service Conference of the 22nd International Workshop(IEEE). Science, 2009. MASS '09. International Conference [44] Hellmann D.T., Chokshi A., Habad Z.S., Pratte S. and (IEEE). Maurer F.(2013) Agile Testing :A systematic Mapping [28] Ullah Imran M. and Waqar Ali Z.(2009) Assurance Across Three conferences. Agile Conference (AGILE), Activities in Agile: Philosophy to 2013(IEEE). :82941 [45] Mahdi A., Hamed M. and Abushama H.(2013) Popular 3/FULLTEXT01.pdf Agile Approaches in software Development: review and [29] Sfetsos P. and Stamelos I.(2010) Empirical Studies on analysis. Computing, Electrical and Electronics quality in agile practices. Published in: QUATIC '10 Engineering (ICCEEE), 2013 International Conference Proceedings of the 2010 Seventh International Conference (IEEE). on the Quality of Information and Communications [46] Jukka M.(2013) Key Performance Indicators in Agile Technology Pages 44-53 IEEE Computer Society Software Development. Washington, DC, USA 2010. /Man [30] Lee G. and Xia W. (2010) Toward Agile: An Integrated nila Jukka.pdf;sequence 1. Analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on [47] Lagerberg L., Skude T., Emanuelsson P., Sandahl K. and software development agility. MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. Stahl D.(2013) The Impact of agile principles and 1, pp. 87-114/March 2010. Published in: Journal MIS practices on large scale software development projects. Quarterly Volume 34 Issue 1, March 2010 Pages 87-114 Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2013 Society for Information Management and The ACM / IEEE International Symposium Management Information Systems Research Center [48] Nathan-Regis, B. N. K., & Nasira, G. M (2013) Agile Minneapolis, MN, USA. Methods and Quality: A Survey. [31] Ahmed, A., Ahmad, S., Ehsan, N., Mirza, E., & Sarwar, S. http://airccj.org/CSCP/vol3/csit3917.pdf Z. (2010, June). Agile software development: Impact on [49] Hossain, A., Kashem, M. A., & Sultana, S. (2013). productivity and quality. In Management of Innovation Enhancing software quality using agile techniques. IOSR and Technology (ICMIT), 2010 IEEE International Journal of Computer Engineering, 10(2), 87-93. Conference on (pp. 287-291). IEEE. [50] Agarwal A., Garg N K. and Jain A.(2014) Quality [32] Abbas N., Gravell M. A. and Wills B. G.(2010) Using Assurance for Product Development using Agile. factor analysis to generate clusters of agile practices. 2010 International Conference on Reliability, Optimization and Agile Conference(IEEE). Information Technology -ICROIT 2014, India, Feb 6-8 [33] Broek R., Bonsangue M.,Chaudron M. and Merode H. 2014(IEEE). (2011) Integrating Testing into Agile Software [51] Mukker A., Singh L. and Mishra A.K.(2014) Systematic development processes. Review of Metrics in Software Agile Projects. http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/23095/23095C.pdf. COMPUSOFT, An international journal of advanced [34] Scharff C.(2011) Guiding Global software development computer technology, 3 (2), February-2014 (Volume-III, projects using scrum and agile with quality assurance. Issue-II) Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), [52] Ghane K. and Anagira Inc.(2014) A Model and System for 2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference. Apllying lean six sigma to Agile software development [35] Singh N. and Soni R (2011) Agile Software: Ensuring using Hybrid Simulation. Technology Management quality assurance and processes. Chapter High Conference (ITMC), 2014 IEEE International. Performance Architecture and Grid Computing Volume [53] Francois J., Monette D. and Trudel S.(2014) Requirements 169 of the series Communications in Computer and Engineering Quality Revealed through Functional size Information Science pp 640-648 (Springer). measurement: An empirical study in an agile context. [36] Mahmud I. and Veneziano V.(2011) Mind Mapping:An Software Measurement and the International Conference Effective Technique to facilitate Requirements on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSMEngineering in Agile software Development. Computer MENSURA), 2014 Joint Conference of the International and Information Technology (ICCIT), 2011 14th Workshop(IEEE). International Conference (IEEE). [54] Silva, F. S., Soares, F. S. F., Peres, A. L., de Azevedo, I. [37] Honiyng G. and Cheng Y.(2011) A Customizable Agile M., Pinto, P. P., & de Lemos Meira, S. R. (2014, Software Quality Model. Information Science and Service September). A Reference Model for Agile Quality Science (NISS), 2011 5th International Conference on Assurance. Quality of Information and Communications New Trends(IEEE). Technology (QUATIC), 2014 9th International [38] Collins E., Dias-Neto A. and Luccena V.(2012) Strategies Conference(IEEE). for Agile Software Testing Automation: An Industrial [55] Shawky D.M. and Abd-el-Hafiz S.K.(2014) The Impact of Approach. Proceeding COMPSACW '12 Proceedings of Agile Approaches on Software Quality Attributes. the 2012 IEEE 36th Annual Computer Software and Software Paradigm Trends (ICSOFT-PT), 2014 9th Applications Conference Workshops Pages 440-445 International Conference(IEEE). Mapping and Analysis of Agile Quality Assurance Metrics 21
International Journal of Advanced Computational Engineering and Networking, ISSN: 2320-2106, Volume-5, Issue-1, Jan.-2017 http://iraj.in [56] Anand T. and Mani V.S. (2015) Practices to make agile [70] Abrahamsson P., Warsta J., Sipomen M. T. and Ronkainen test teams effective: challenges and solutions. Global (2003) New Directions on Agile Methods: A Comparative Software Engineering Workshops (ICGSEW), 2015 IEEE Analysis. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference 10th International Conference. on Software Engineering Pages 244-254. [57] Seetharaman B. and Perera I. (2015) The Development of [71] Paetsch F,. Eberlein A. and Maurer F.(2003) Requirements Agile Cost Management Tool. Electrical Engineering and engineering and Agile software Development. WETICE Informatics (ICEEI), 2015 International Conference '03 Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on (IEEE). Enabling Technologies: Infra-structure for Collaborative [58] Padmini K.V., Dilum H.M. and Perera I. (2015) Use of Enterprises Page 308 Software Metrics in Agile Software Development Process. [72] Bach J.(2007) Agile Test Automation. Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), http://www.satisfice.com/articles/agileauto-paper.
2. Quality Assurance AND Methods of Agile 3. Metrics of quality AND Agile quality assurance 4. Agile AND Quality 5. Agile Quality AND Software Development 6. Agile quality AND Agile methods The search keywords for agile particulars have been merged by using the Boolean ''OR" operator, which
concept mapping has been developed to address these limitations of mind mapping. 3.2 Concept Mapping Concept mapping is often confused with mind mapping (Ahlberg, 1993, 2004; Slotte & Lonka, 1999). However, unlike mind mapping, concept mapping is more structured, and less pictorial in nature.
Argument mapping is different from mind mapping and concept mapping (Figure 1). As Davies described, while mind mapping is based on the associative connections among images and topics and concept mapping is concerned about the interrelationships among concepts, argument mapping “ is interested in the inferential basis for a claim
Mapping is one of the basic elements in Informatica code. A mapping with out business rules are know as Flat mappings. To understand the basics of Mapping in Informatica, let us create a Mapping that inserts data from source into the target. Create Mapping in Informatica. To create Mapping in Informatica, open Informatica PowerCenter Designer .
Mind mapping Mind mapping (or ‘‘idea’’ mapping) has been defined as ‘visual, non-linear representations of ideas and their relationships’ (Biktimirov and Nilson 2006). Mind maps comprise a network of connected and related concepts. However, in mind mapping, any idea can be connected to
Mapping Analyst for Excel includes mapping specifications and metamaps. Mapping Specifications A mapping specification is a Microsoft Excel file that includes metadata to import into the PowerCenter repository. Use a mapping specification to define sources or targets or to define a mapping by describing the
i. Definition of Utility Mapping. ii. History of Utility Mapping. iii. Objectives of Utility Survey & Mapping in Malaysia. iv. The scope of Utility Mapping in standard guidelines for underground utility mapping. v. The role of utility owner, surveyor and JUPEM in underground utility mapping. 1 UNDERSTAND THE UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL ATTRIBUTES i.
What is Asset Mapping? Other Names and Types: Participatory Asset Mapping Community Mapping What is it? Asset Mapping –general process of identifying and providing information about a community’s resources Participatory Mapping –process of creating a display of resources that make up a
The Current State Mapping - The goal of current state mapping is to create the clear picture of the existing process and to identify waste. Mapping the current state reveals both value and non-value adding activities. The Future State Mapping - The focus of future state mapping
