Evaluation Study of Software Quality Management ‎‎(SQM) and Quantitative Process Management ‎‎(QPM) in Pakistan Software Houses

Full Text (PDF, 176KB), PP.40-46

Views: 0 Downloads: 0


Muhammad Haroonb 1,*

1. Department of Computer Science & Information Technology University of Gujrat Lahore Sub Campus, Lahore, Pakistan.

* Corresponding author.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5815/ijeme.2020.04.05

Received: 8 Mar. 2020 / Revised: 15 Apr. 2020 / Accepted: 3 May 2020 / Published: 8 Aug. 2020

Index Terms

Key Process Areas, KPA, ‎Capability Maturity Mode, CMMI, Software ‎Quality Management, SQM, Quantitative Process ‎Management, QPM, Software House, Pakistan ‎Software House.


Key Process Areas (KPAs) for ‎Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Maturity ‎Level 4 can be described in terms of Quantitative ‎Process Management (QPM) which is the metric ‎to control the quantitative performance of a ‎software project. On the other hand, Software ‎Quality Management (SQM) monitors and ‎controls the quality of the project. The survey ‎conducted in this paper covers around 20 ‎software houses of Pakistan. The study revealed ‎that there is weakness in both KPAs, SQM and ‎QPM. Each KPA defines a set of rules that are necessary to be followed to meet the standard but many organizations fail to follow these rules defined in every KPA. If specified and ‎appropriate measures are taken, the software ‎industry will lift it up to the higher CMMI Level.‎

Cite This Paper

Muhammad Haroon, " Evaluation Study of Software Quality Management ‎‎(SQM) and Quantitative Process Management ‎‎(QPM) in Pakistan Software Houses ", International Journal of Education and Management Engineering (IJEME), Vol.10, No.4, pp.40-46, 2020. DOI: 10.5815/ijeme.2020.04.05


[1]Heeks, R.B. (2002) i-Development not e-development, Journal of International Development, 14(1): 1-12.

[2]Current Trends In The Adoption Of The CMMI Product Suit, Dave Zubrow, 27th Annual international computer software and application conference 2003.

[3]‎Kit, E., Software Testing in the ‎Real World: Improving the Process. ‎Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, ‎‎1995.‎

[4]‎Tassey, G., The Economic Impacts ‎of Inadequate Infrastructure for ‎Software Testing. U.S. National ‎Institute of Standards and Technology ‎report, RTI Project Number 7007.011, ‎‎2002.‎

[5]Paulk M. C., Weber C. V., Garcia S. M., Chrissis M. B., and Bush M. (1993). Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-025 ESC-TR-93-178, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

[6]Paulk M. C., Weber C. V., Curtis B., & Chrissis M. B. (1995). The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison – Wesley, Boston

[7]Sommerville, I. (2011). "Chapter 24: Quality Management". Software Engineering (9th ed.). Addison-Wesley. pp. 651–680. ISBN 9780137035151.

[8]Zsolt, U. (February 2014). "Software quality management". Software Development Processes and Software Quality Assurance. University of Pannonia. pp. 117–121. Retrieved 7 December 2017.

[9]Sommerville I. (2006). Quality Management. Software Engineering, 8th edition. Chapter 27 Slides. AddisonWesley, England.

[10]Humphrey W. S. (2008). The Software Quality Challenge. CROSSTALK: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. pp 4 - 9.

[11]Sowunmi O. Y., Misra S., Fernandez-Sanz L. , Crawford B. and Soto R. (2016). An empirical evaluation of software quality assurance practices and challenges in a developing country: a comparison of Nigeria and Turkey.SpringerPlus20165:1921. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3575-5.

[12]Malik Hneif, Siew Hock Ow, “Review of Agile Methodology in Software Development”, IJRR in Applied Sciences, Vol 1 Issue 1, Oct 2009.

[13]Moses Kehinde Aregbesola, “Evaluation of Quantitative Process and Software Quality Management in the Nigerian Software-House”, International Journal of Computer Applications, Volume 168  No.1, June 2017. [14] Aregbesola M. K. and Oluwade B. A. (2014). An Experimental Evaluation of Defect Prevention and Change Management in Software Process Optimization in the Nigerian Software Industry. ARPN Journal of Systems and Software Vol.4, No.1, pp. 5-11.

[14]Hikichi K., Yonemitsu T., Fukuchi Y., Fushida K. and Iida H.(2005). An assistance method of incorporating quantitative management indicator into software development process. Hitachi, Ltd., Shinagawa, Tokyo, Japan.