Paper detail

Measuring Cost of Quality (CoQ) on SDLC Projects is Indispensible for Effective Software Quality Assurance

It is well known fact that was phrased by famous quality scholar P.B. Crosby that it is always cheaper to do the job right the first time. However, this statement must be reconsidered with respect to software development projects, because the concept of quality and associated costs measurements in software engineering discipline is not as matured as in manufacturing and other fields of the industry. Post delivery defects (i.e. software bugs) are very common and integral part of software industry. While the process of measuring and classifying quality cost components is visible, obvious and institutionalized in manufacturing industry, it is still evolving in software industry. In addition to this, the recommendations of British standard BS-6143-2:1990 for classifying quality-related costs into prevention costs, appraisal costs, and failure costs have been successfully adopted by many industries, by identifying the activities carried out within each of these categories, and measuring the costs connected with them, software industry has a long-way to go to have the same level of adoption and institutionalization of cost of quality measurements and visibility. Cost of Quality for software isn't the price of creating a quality software product or IT-service. It's actually the cost of NOT creating a quality software product or IT-service. The chronic affliction of majority of software development projects that are frequently found bleeding with cost overruns, schedule slippage, scope creep and poor quality of deliverables in the global IT industry, was the trigger for this research work. Lessons learnt from this study offer valuable prescriptive guidance for small and medium software businesses, who can benefit from this study by applying the same for their quality improvement initiatives using CoQ-metric, to enhance the capability and maturity of their SDLC-project performance.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.