SEARCH
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Prev | Current Page 452 | Next

Margaret K. Kulpa, Kent A. Johnson

"Interpreting the CMMI: A Process Improvement Approach, Second Edition"

g., number written and
number closed)
Integration evaluation report aging (i.e., how long each problem report has
been open)
Number of activities planned versus actual
Validation problem report trends
Validation problem report aging
Veri?¬?cation pro?¬?le (e.g., number activities planned versus actual, and the
defects found)
Number of defects detected
Veri?¬?cation problem report trends
Veri?¬?cation problem report aging
VAL
VER
RD
TS
PI
table 16.1 example Measures for engineering Process Areas
212 n Interpreting the CMMI
Most organizations use effort measures to satisfy the requirements for monitoring
and controlling their projects. This focus on one measure has shown little benefit.
Some organizations use measures similar to the examples shown in Table 16.1
and have demonstrated significant improvements in product quality and reductions
in rework. Most of the organizations that implement measurement programs successfully
develop their own in-house tools that provide measurement data as an
add-on or side effect of performing normal work.


Pages:
440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464