This paper proposes the definition of a goal programming model for the selection of artifacts to be developed during a testing process, so that the set of selected artifacts is more viable to the reality of micro and small enterprises. This model was based on the IEEE Standard 829, which establishes a set of artifacts that must be generated throughout the test activities. Several factors can influence the definition of this set of artifacts. Therefore, in order to consider such factors, we developed a multicriteria model that helps in determining the priority of artifacts according to the reality of micro and small enterprises. 1. Introduction According to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Brazil, about 60% of software development enterprises in this country are classified as micro and small enterprises [1, 2]. In order to remain on the market, these companies need to invest significantly in improving the quality of their products because of the inherent complexity of the software development activity, which depends mainly on the interpretation skills of those involved. For that reason, this activity is susceptible to various issues, including the possibility of developing software other than what is expected by the user. In this context, the test activity is fundamental in supporting the quality assurance of products. However, it is important to note that according to the estimates obtained in recent years, 50% of development costs are allocated to software testing [3] and, in the scenario of micro and small enterprises (MSEs), where resources availability is limited, software testing activities are reduced or, in many cases, eliminated [4], because of the lack of skilled professionals in the area, the variety of techniques existing, and the difficulty of implementing a testing process. These companies do not have the necessary capital to hire such professionals, besides not having the know-how of testing techniques and having much difficulty to deploy a testing process practical enough. A variety of micro and small enterprises still do not have a formal testing process and even have the ability to implement a process that meets the needs and ensure the correct execution of activities. Generally testing activities, when included in the development process of software these companies are carried out by developers or system analysts. These professionals do not have knowledge about the techniques and testing criteria and, therefore, cannot benefit from the application of the techniques most appropriate to the context of the organization and the
References
[1]
MCT. Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia. Qualidade e Produtividade no Setor de Software Brasileiro: Resultados da pesquisa, 2005, http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/3253/Pesquisa_2005.html.
[2]
SEPIN (Secretaria de Política de Informática), MCT (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia), Qualidade e Produtividade no Setor de Software—Resultados da Pesquisa, 2005, http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/3253/Pesquisa_2005.html.
[3]
S. Wagner and T. Seifert, “Software quality economics for defect-detection techniques using failure prediction,” ACM Software Engineering Notesn, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1–6, 2005.
[4]
A. Rodrigues, A. Bessa, and P. R. Pinheiro, “Barriers to implement test process in small-sized companies,” Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 233–242, 2010.
[5]
P. Laplante, F. Belli, J. Gao, et al., “Software test automation,” Advances in Software Engineering, vol. 2010, Article ID 163746, 2 pages, 2010.
[6]
L. E. S. Sartori, Melhoria do processo de teste para pequenas empresas [M.S. Disserta？？o], Departamento de Ciência da Computa？？o, Centro Universitário Eurípides de Marília, Funda？？o de Ensino Eurípides Soares da Rocha, 2005.
[7]
“SEI (Software Engineering Institute). CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV), Version 1.3,” Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa, USA, 2010.
[8]
SOFTEX (Associa？？o para Promo？？o da Excelência do Software Brasileiro—SOFTEX), MPS.BR—Guia Geral, 2011, http://www.softex.br.
[9]
R. Singh, “ISO/IEC draft international standard 12207, software life-cycle processes,” IFIP Transactions A, no. 55, pp. 111–113, 1994.
[10]
ISO/IEC 15504, Information Technology—Software Process Assessment, Parts 19, International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
[11]
I. Burnstein, T. Suwanassart, and R. Carlson, “Developing a testing maturity model for software test process evaluation and improvement,” in Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Test Conference, pp. 581–589, Washington, DC, USA, October 1996.
[12]
T. Koomen and P. O. L. M, Test Process Improvement: A Practical Step-By-Step Guide to Structured Testing, Addison-Wesley, 1999.
[13]
IEEE Standard 829-1998: Standard for Software Test Documentation, IEEE Press.
[14]
A. N. Crespo, O. J. Silva, C. A. Borges, C. F. Salviano, M. Argollo, and M. Jino, “Uma metodologia para teste de Software no Contexto da Melhoria de Processo,” in III Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software (SBQS '04), Brasília, Brazil, 2004.
[15]
C. L. B. Maia, R. A. F. Carmo, F. G. Freitas, G. A. L. Campos, and J. T. Souza, “Automated test case prioritization with reactive GRASP,” Advances in Software Engineering, vol. 2010, Article ID 428521, 18 pages, 2010.
[16]
N. Koochakzadeh and V. Garousi, “A tester-assisted methodology for test redundancy detection,” Advances in Software Engineering, vol. 2010, Article ID 932686, 13 pages, 2010.
[17]
C. A. Bana e Costa, J. M. De Corte, and J. C. Vansnick, “MACBETH,” International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 359–387, 2012.
[18]
？. M. A. Schmidt, Processo de apoio à tomada de decis？o—abordagens: AHP e MACBETH [M.S. Disserta？？o], UFSC, Florianópolis, Brazil, 1995, www.eps.ufsc.br/disserta/engait95.html.
[19]
F. Gon？alves, G. S. Márcia, et al., “Multicriteria model for selection of automated system tests,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems (CONFENIS '06), Viena, áustria, 2006.
[20]
A. Rodrigues, P. R. Pinheiro, M. M. Rodrigues, A. B. Albuquerque, and F. M. Gon？alves, “Towards the selection of testable use cases and a real experience,” Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 49, pp. 513–521, 2009.
[21]
A. Rodrigues, P. P. Rogerio, M. M. Rodrigues, C. A. Albuquerque, and F. M. Gon？alves, “Applying a multicriteria model for selection of test use cases: a use of experience,” International Journal Social and Humanistic Computing, vol. 1, pp. 246–260, 2010.
[22]
A. Rodrigues, C. A. Albuquerque, P. P. Rogerio, A. Bessa, A. Diego, and M. Thiago, “Uma abordagem de teste de software para micro e pequenas empresas,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems, 2010.
[23]
A. Rodrigues, P. R. Pinheiro, and A. Albuquerque, “The definiton of a testing process to small-sized companies: the Brazilian scenario,” in 7th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, QUATIC 2010, pp. 298–303, Porto, Portugal, October 2010.
[24]
A. C. Hax and D. Candea, Production and Inventory Management, Prentice-Hall, 1984.
[25]
A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper, “Goal programming and multiple objectives optimizations,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 1, pp. 39–54, 1977.
[26]
A. Rodrigues, Uma metodologia de testes em software para micro e pequenas empresas estruturada em multicritério [M.S. dissertation], Graduate Program in Applied Informatics, University of Fortaleza, 2011.
