Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Trust in Open Source Software Development Author: Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Date: 2 June 2008 Location: Barcelona, Spain.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Trust in Open Source Software Development Author: Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Date: 2 June 2008 Location: Barcelona, Spain."— Presentation transcript:

1 Trust in Open Source Software Development Author: Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Date: 2 June 2008 Location: Barcelona, Spain

2 Outline Trust in the QualiPSo project Assumptions and challenges 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano)

3 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Overview Vision Through the definition of a CMMI-like model for FLOSS to improve the trust in FLOSS software Allow companies to use FLOSS to build their main stream products and services How? Through the identification of the quality factors of FLOSS products

4 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Overview Aims Identification of the factors that affect the trust in FLOSS development analyzing how FLOSS is developed in: Companies FLOSS communities Definition of a CMMI-like model for the development of FLOSS Development of a methodology and a set of tools to support the adoption of the CMMI-like model

5 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Research assumptions and challenges Companies are interested in exploiting and participating to the FLOSS phenomenon FLOSS helps in reducing costs and time-to- market allowing companies to focus on the added value Assumptions Difficulty of collecting data from different and non-structured sources Number of stakeholders Novelty of the field Challenges

6 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Research assumptions and challenges Identify trust and quality elements in the product and in the development process Analyze the structure of FLOSS communities (e.g., roles of the developers) and how it affects the development process, the quality, and the trust Identify product and processes elements that guarantee a required quality level

7 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Research assumptions and challenges Define of a CMMI-like model for FLOSS development Perform experiments to access the real impact of the model and the tools Identify and develop tools to support the adoption of the model

8 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Research assumptions and challenges Application of Social Network Analysis techniques to identify the structures of FLOSS projects and communities Analysis of FLOSS processes in communities and in companies through surveys Analyze FLOSS communities and companies using two approaches:

9 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Research assumptions and challenges Metrics identification and collection from the source code repositories Analysis of FLOSS in companies through surveys Analyze FLOSS products using two approaches:

10 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Advancement over the State of the Art Identification of FLOSS trustworthiness factors for: –Process –Products in companies and FLOSS communities Linking of the trust-related goals to the specific quality factors Definition of a CMMI-like process for OSS Definition of common tests and benchmarks Definition of a set of tools for the assessment

11 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Results Analysis of the structure of 3 FLOSS groups of interest: –Companies (large and SMEs) –Public administrations –FLOSS communities About 100 questionnaires collected

12 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Results What are the factors considered in the adoption of OSS? functional requirements8 fundamental customer satisfaction7 very high customer interoperability issues7 very high maintainability7 very high reliability7 very high interoperability7 very high documentation6 high duration of user community6 high modularity6 high standard architecture6 high standard compliance6 high

13 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Results law compliance5 fairly high environment5 fairly high tools5 fairly high user community witnessing quality5 fairly high short-term support5 fairly high type of licenses5 fairly high ROI5 fairly high performance5 fairly high usability5 fairly high reputation of vendor4 medium portability4 medium

14 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Results customer-imposed standard 3 low existence of best practices3 low exist. of benchmarks/test suites3 low language uniformity3 low TCO3 low localization3 low structural complexity3 low patterns3 low self-containedness3 low existence of training / guidelines2 very low existence of maintainer organization2 very low distribution channel1 negligible size1 negligible

15 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Results What are the elements in the process that allow you to trust the quality of the final result? Quality of documentation 100% Popularity of the product (number of users…) 80% Standards used 60% Roadmap respected 60% Quality of test plan 60% Following the test plan 60% Communication channels available 60% The copyright used, possible patents problems free 60% Use of tools cvs, bug tracking 60% Description of process followed 50% NOT care of the process 50% Number of bug reports (misunderstood functionality) 40% Number of commits (developers) 40% Independent body that checks the process 40% Maintainability 40% People in the project 40% Sponsored companies and industry 40%

16 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Results User satisfaction 75% Standards used 75% Testing and test suits (automatic or not) 75% Documentation 50% Use of metrics: bug reports 50% Number of users - community size 50% Certification of the softwares quality by a third party 50% Process followed (ITIL, RUP) 50% NOT CMMI (too heavy for development) 25% Quality assurance process followed 25% Quality of the code, stability, security and usability of the software, features included, the time frame 25% Who tests the code and the process? The developers inside the company 80% The community 60% Project owner, manager 40% Selected users test the software 40% A separate team 40% Customers 20% Quality assurance team 20% Integrators team 20% What are the aspects for verifying quality of the product you use/produce ?

17 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Conclusions Main research results: –The two most important elements that guarantee the quality of the FLOSS product are a high quality documentation and the size of the user base –The most important motivation for choosing a FLOSS product in comparison with a proprietary one is the price of the licence while TCO is not. –Interviewed companies mainly develop products for their customers only losing an important contribution that FLOSS could bring them

18 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Conclusions Main research results (cont.): –The motivation for developing FLOSS products are related to services that they can offer on top of them –In many cases, the development process is not an important factor to assess the quality of a FLOSS product –The development process and the assessment of the quality are very important in specific areas (e.g., where certifications are needed)

19 02/06/2008Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano)


Download ppt "Trust in Open Source Software Development Author: Alberto Sillitti (Free University of Bolzano) Date: 2 June 2008 Location: Barcelona, Spain."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google