CFP last date
20 June 2024
Reseach Article

Evaluation of Quantitative Process and Software Quality Management in the Nigerian Software-House

by Moses Kehinde Aregbesola
International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 168 - Number 1
Year of Publication: 2017
Authors: Moses Kehinde Aregbesola

Moses Kehinde Aregbesola . Evaluation of Quantitative Process and Software Quality Management in the Nigerian Software-House. International Journal of Computer Applications. 168, 1 ( Jun 2017), 29-36. DOI=10.5120/ijca2017914273

@article{ 10.5120/ijca2017914273,
author = { Moses Kehinde Aregbesola },
title = { Evaluation of Quantitative Process and Software Quality Management in the Nigerian Software-House },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { Jun 2017 },
volume = { 168 },
number = { 1 },
month = { Jun },
year = { 2017 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 29-36 },
numpages = {9},
url = { },
doi = { 10.5120/ijca2017914273 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-07T00:14:59.042672+05:30
%A Moses Kehinde Aregbesola
%T Evaluation of Quantitative Process and Software Quality Management in the Nigerian Software-House
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 168
%N 1
%P 29-36
%D 2017
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA

The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is made up of 5 maturity levels namely Initial, Managed, Defined, Quantitatively Managed, and Optimizing. Each maturity level consists of Key Process Areas (KPA) each of which in turn consists of key practices. Recent studies have shown that many developing countries rank poorly on this maturity model. The current study evaluated the level of performance of the practices associated with the two KPAs at maturity level 4 in a typical Nigerian software-house. The SEI CMMI Organizational Process Performance and Quantitative Project Management KPAs at maturity level 4 (Quantitatively Managed) are depicted as Software Quality Management (SQM) and Quantitative Process Management (QPM) respectively in the SEI maturity questionnaire employed in conducting the study. The survey study was conducted across 30 different software-houses within the country. The study equally employed the action research approach with some of the selected companies which were nominated for more detailed investigation. The study revealed weak performances in both KPAs but with a better performance of the practices associated with the SQM KPA. The findings from the current study were observed to be consistent with findings from similar studies in other developing countries. The causes of the observed weak performances, including unawareness of the existence of laid down international standards, non-adherence to such standards and inadequate knowledge about the required process improvement techniques, were discussed. Solutions, such as the institutionalisation of formal standard indicators for QPM and SQM with associated functional definitions, measurement methods, and analysis models, were proffered to address the causes of the weak performances experienced in both KPAs. Also, adequate resources in terms of time, budget, bureaucracy, tools, training, organisational framework, senior management support, common understanding and patience was equally advocated for QPM and SQM practices so as to forestall the occurrence of any unforeseen overhead. It was equally suggested that quality reviews for assessing software quality should be performed as often as possible and should secure the full support of organisational top management. Quality management activities should also be separated from project management activities so as to guarantee the independence of the quality management reviews. Finally, organizational top managements were encouraged to enforce strict adherence to QPM and SQM practices across the length and breadth of the organization. It is believed that if the proffered solutions are adopted, the software-houses will rank higher on the CMMI maturity scale and most likely experience better patronage.

  1. Heeks, R.B. (1999) Software strategies in developing countries, Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 15-20
  2. Heeks, R.B. (2002) i-Development not e-development, Journal of International Development, 14(1): 1-12.
  3. Soriyan H. A. and Heeks R. (2004). A Profile of Nigeria's Software Industry. Development Informatics Working Paper No 21, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.
  4. 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.
  5. Aregbesola M. K. and Akinkunmi B. O. (2010a). Software Process Implementation – A focus on the Nigerian Software Industry. Journal of Research in Physical Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 9 – 14.
  6. Aregbesola M. K. and Akinkunmi B. O. (2010b). Software Process Implementation – A focus on the Nigerian Software Industry. International Research and Development Institute (IRDI), World Congress on Research and Development, Conference Center, University of Ibadan, 5th - 8th October. Vol. 5, No. 6, pg.111-116.
  7. Aregbesola M. K., Akinkunmi B. O., and Akinola O. S. (2011). Process Maturity Assessment of the Nigerian Software Industry. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology (IJAET), Vol.1, Issue 4, pp. 10-25.
  8. Zubrow D., William H., Jane S. and Dennis G. (1994). Maturity Questionnaire. Special Report CMU/SEI-94-SR-7, June 1994.
  9. Glover M. T. and Dennie D. (2017). CMMI–Agile Process Combo: How to be Agile with CMMI. Excellence in Measurement Technology.
  10. O’Neill D. (2017). In Search of a Modern Software Life Cycle: Secure DevOps Foundations for Large-Scale Software Systems. CrossTalk March/April 2017: Modern Process Trends.
  11. Jalote P. (2002). Managing Software Projects. Addison-Wesley.
  12. CMMI Product Team (2006). CMMI for Development, Version 1.2 - CMMI-DEV, V1.2. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
  13. Hurst J. (2017). The Capability Maturity Model and Its Applications. SANS Software Security with Frank Kim.
  14. Mogre A. and Salunkhe S. (2014). Effective CMMi Implementation in Agile environment with fresh team. Atos, Mumbai, India.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Aregbesola M. K. (2017a). Experiential Appraisal of Organizational Process Focus and Process Definition in Nigerian Software Companies. Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. In press.
  18. Aregbesola M. K. (2017b). Investigating Training Program and Intergroup Coordination in relation to Peer Review in Nigerian Software Companies. Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. In press.
  19. Aregbesola M. K. (2017c). Integrated Software Management and Product Engineering. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  20. Campo M. and Smith K. (2012). NDIA CMMI Technology Conference & Users Group. November 5-8, Denver, Colorado.
  21. INCOSE (2010). A Basic Introduction to Measurement Concepts and Use for Systems Engineering. International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Systems Engineering Measurement Primer v2.0. 5th November.
  22. Madachy R. (2000). Process Management and Software Quality Management. USC Computer Science CS577b.
  23. Niessink F. and Vliet H. (1999). The Vrije Universiteit IT Service Capability Maturity Model. Faculty of Sciences, Division of Mathematics and Computer Science Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
  24. Kinnula A. (2001). Software Process Engineering Systems: Models and Industry Cases. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu.
  25. Sargut K. U. (2003). Application of Statistical Process Control to Software Development Processes via Control Charts. A Master of Science Thesis submitted to the graduate school of Informatics of the Moddle East Technical University.
  26. Keraminiyage K., Amaratunga D. and Haigh R. (2005). Achieving higher capability maturity in construction process improvement. In: 2nd International Conference for Postgraduate Researchers of the Built And Natural Environment (PRoBE), 16th ­ 17th November, Glasgow, Scotland. (Unpublished).
  27. Paulk M. C. (1999). Toward Quantitative Process Management With Exploratory Data Analysis. International Conference on Software Quality, Cambridge, MA. pp. 1-7.
  28. 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.
  29. Popa M. (2011). Techniques and Methods to Improve the Audit Process of the Distributed Informatics Systems Based on Metric System. Informatica Economică. vol. 15, no. 2, pp 69 -78.
  30. Ebert C., Dumke R. (2011). Software Measurement. Springer, New York.
  31. Lewis W. E. (2004). Software testing and continuous quality improvement. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton.
  32. Murugesan S. (1994). Attitude towards testing: a key contributor to software quality. In: Proceeding of 1st international conference on software testing, reliability and quality assurance. IEEE, New Delhi, pp 111–115.
  33. Sommerville I. (2007). Software engineering. Addison-Wesley, England.
  34. Sommerville I. (2006). Quality Management. Software Engineering, 8th edition. Chapter 27 Slides. Addison-Wesley, England.
  35. Humphrey W. S. (2008). The Software Quality Challenge. CROSSTALK: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. pp 4 - 9.
  36. Elgebeely A. R. (2013). Software quality challenges and practice recommendations. In: IBM.
  37. Soriyan H. A., Mursu A. and Korpela M. (2000). Information system development methodologies: gender issues in a developing economy. In: Women, Work and Computerization, E. Balka & R. Smith (eds.), Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, 146-154.
  38. Aregbesola M. K. and Onwudebelu U. (2011). Typical Software Quality Assurance and Quality Management Issues in the Nigerian Software Industry. National Association for Science, Humanities & Education Research, 8th National Conference, University of Ado Ekiti, Ado Ekiti, September 14-17.
  39. 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.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences


Capability Maturity Model CMMI Key Process Areas KPA Quantitative Process Management QPM Software Quality Management SQM Quality Management QM Software Process Software Industry Nigerian Software-House Nigerian Software Industry.