mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Software Test Process Improvement Approaches: A Systematic Literature Review and an Industrial Case Study
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems. Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0611-2655
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
2016 (English)In: Journal of Systems and Software JSS, ISSN 0164-1212, Vol. 111, 1-33 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Software test process improvement (STPI) approaches are frameworks that guide software development organizations to improve their software testing process. We have identified existing STPI approaches and their characteristics (such as completeness of development, availability of information and assessment instruments, and domain limitations of the approaches) using a systematic literature review (SLR). Furthermore, two selected approaches (TPI NEXT and TMMi) are evaluated with respect to their content and assessment results in industry. As a result of this study, we have identified 18 STPI approaches and their characteristics. A detailed comparison of the content of TPI NEXT and TMMi is done. We found that many of the STPI approaches do not provide sufficient information or the approaches do not include assessment instruments. This makes it difficult to apply many approaches in industry. Greater similarities were found between TPI NEXT and TMMi and fewer differences. We conclude that numerous STPI approaches are available but not all are generally applicable for industry. One major difference between available approaches is their model representation. Even though the applied approaches generally show strong similarities, differences in the assessment results arise due to their different model representations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 111, 1-33 p.
National Category
Computer Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-30006DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.08.048ISI: 000370462800001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84949796965OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-30006DiVA: diva2:885803
Available from: 2015-12-21 Created: 2015-12-18 Last updated: 2016-03-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Afzal, Wasif
By organisation
Embedded Systems
Computer Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 539 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf