A Sdlc Developed Software Testing Process Using

Published on November 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 37 | Comments: 0 | Views: 239
of 9
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

A SDLC DEVELOPED SOFTWARE TESTING PROCESS USING
DMAIC MODEL
Oythip Onsuk1, Pongpisit Wuttidittachotti1, Somchai Prakancharoen2 and Sakda Arj-ong Vallipakorn3
1

Faculty of Information Technology, King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand
2Faculty of Applied Science,
King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand
3Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
E-mail: [email protected],

ABSTRACT
This study aim to resolve the software testing processes by create reliance of a system. With traditional testing
processes, there are many issues of unacceptable defects found after the end of testing processes. To solve this problem, we
applied quality management according to Six Sigmas quality improvements. From the principles of DMAIC, they found
the most of mistakes came from runtime error, logical error and syntax error at 3.83%, 2.83% and 5.50%, respectively.
This research consists of five stages of problem identification, the root cause analysis to find out the problems, drawn tree
and fishbone diagrams help to analyze and solve problems. The quality improvement concepts were implement by using
experiment designed techniques which controlled by standard software testing in the final step to ensure that the problems
will not occur again. The results show that using quality management with the principles of DMAIC integration can reduce
defects referring to Run Time error from 3.83%, 2.83%, 5.50% to 2.67%, 1.33%, 3.83%. This benefit will improve the
confidence level, and raise the good image of the company.
Keywords: software testing, CMMI, six sigma, DMAIC, information system.

INTRODUCTION
This research focuses on software testing
processes using technical knowledge to identified errors
and mistakes (Ng, 2005). A case study selected one of the
software house organization that had local and
international business operations in the field of software
development services. The software configurationmanagement (SCM) was one component in the process of
creating a software quality standard of CMMI (Capability
Maturity Model: CMMI). Because of SCM and CMMI
were appropriated approach to software development. The
recently report showed increases ability of the
organization to manage the software development projects
(Brayton, 2009). That means this prototype help to provide
quality and promote the trusted image of an organization
to customers. The CMMI processes addressed the steps of
development. It began with the conceptual designed,
development, final implement, and then through to the
maintenance steps. Disadvantageous of CMMI process
integration usually affects to each artifact, each item and
each mistake in the processes caused a lot of work in the
document generation area. This research looks for the
methodology to solve this problem to reduce errors and
loss of earnings from quality of products and services.
Development of the organization used elements
of a Six Sigma Quality Improvement which focused on
reducing errors and eliminating problems to provide an
efficient guideline processes– DMAIC (Define, Measure,
Analyze, Control, and Improvement) (Kaur, 2005). As part
of the method, defining the problems was the goal of the
project management, especially measuring characteristics
of the current process and collect relevant data, then
analyzed in order to verify and confirm the relationship
between causes and effects. Once verified, all relationships

and factors deliberated to find out the causes of defects
under investigation. The updating or enhancing of the
current process were depended on the data analysis
process, which used error-checking techniques to ensure
the standardization and creates a new process in the future.
These problems must be minimize the error in the
manufacturing process. This objective aimed to provide a
DMAIC process to solve this problem, increases customer
trust, reduces cost, time consumption, and barriers of
software testing as in Figure-1.

Figure-1. Barriers of the software testing.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Principle of Six Sigma was an important quality
improvement process based on customer satisfaction or
customer-based center (Yaacov, 2000). The concept of Six
Sigma management attempted to reduce the defects that
could not be met the customer requirements. That means,
the need to know the requirements and expectations of the

1008

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com
customer were very important. This research addressed to
the first stage of development by using the actual
requirement and facts from customer. The management of
Six Sigma complied on appropriated statistical model to
create the decision support based on factual evidences to
take more advantage. In other words, the Six Sigma was
an improvement process that aims to improve the quality
by re-arrangement of management and processes to
generate the best of products and minimize errors
(Suratkar, 2002).
The Six Sigma contained an analytic process and
evaluation to continuity improvement, which consists of
the proactive management that focused on dealing with the
problems, emphases on the important of customer, and
finds a problem by exploring directed causes and
eliminates the root causes of the burden problem
(Santorin, 2003). There were three major goals to
successfully archive when trying to satisfy customers and
reduced the cycle to minimize the defects. The three major
process elements of Six Sigma were as follows (Mandl,
1985). The first element processes of improvement used to
search the problems, approached to improve the existing
processes. Further steps applied to get rid of the existing
problems, and the last steps of the first element discovered
ways to control the permanent of best results. The second
element is the design process (Process design/redesign) in
cases when the organization have chosen a new product to
develop, this process used instead of the correcting the
previous defects or added a new service/product rather
than tried to update from previous mistaken. Because the
original process involved the improving of the previous
process, this was not enough to beat other competitors or
achieve customer requirements (Tatsumi and Keizo,
1987). This struggles brought to develop new concept,
which designed to achieve maximum customer satisfaction
with minimized defects. This new concept aimed to
achieve the highest quality by applying designs of Six
Sigma quality improvement in to the new concept (Design
for six sigma-DFSS) (Brownlie, 1992).
The third element interested in process
management (Process management) (Bernstein, 1993).
The Six Sigma process could not be fully creative with
sustainable results without the participation of quality and
process management appropriately (Tatsumi and Keizo,
1987). This means that the management had to determine
the direction and strategy of the organization, using
leadership strategy to create a quality culture in the
development of the Six Sigma. This included finding out
customer needs, seeking development opportunity, quality
monitoring, as well as trying to control sustainable results
of development in the organization. Tatsumi, et al. highly
emphases the third element as the leadership quality of Six
Sigma.
PROCESS SIX SIGMA
D-Define was the first step of Six Sigma to define
the topics and scopes of the project (Lyu, 1996). This
project implemented to improve or change the objectives

beginning with the search for the true customer (Apichat,
2012). Followed the customer needs, which met the
customer’s specification, or what could compete in the
same business to draw the target of project (Von, 1993). In
addition, it needed to define the scope of the project to
ensure the project had an appropriate size and direction
within a timeframe. Usually, we marked steps by writing a
process map to clarify the work process involved in each
step from the beginning to the project’s completion.
Commonly, each project takes at least 3 months to
complete, there needs joint of projects among several
involved people who come from different departments.
These needed to define and understood the framework of
the project to ensure effective collaboration.
M-Measure was a collection of information of
theirs output (Gokhale, 1997). The services of the process,
started from a defined data input plans, data formats,
method of data storage in which appropriated to
requirements. After that, data evaluation process was done
to reflecting effectiveness and performance of the process
compared to the target, which relevant with customer
needs and specification (Michael, 2008). In Six Sigma,
anything that does not conform to the target counted as
defects and Sigma Level reflecting the occurred chance of
defects.
A-Analyze was the analytical process to make the
assumption why the output did not met the goal of
customer needs (Michael, 2008). This was the same as the
cause of defect (Xs): the mathematical equation was Y = f
(Xs). If the targets were not met in Six Sigma, they
considered defect (Y), so this gathering of statistical data
statistically analyzed what factors affect the defects and
then arranged in order of precedence to determine the
causes, and secondary causes (X1, X2, X3, ....) (Bubevski,
2008). The Six Sigma working steps must be verified and
clarified, and not rely on beliefs or feelings for the final
decision. There was a variety of statistical tools that must
be chosen correctly fit with the data and the process
worked to provide precision analysis. Then the results can
be trusted (Bubevski, 2009).
I-Improve, could analyze until the main causes
were knew (X1) (Gokhale, 1997). This step directly
addresses the improvement process by focusing on
eliminating or reducing main cause of problems in Six
Sigma that must to evaluate (Paul, 1983). Each X was
able to deliver results to improve as many of Y values
especially useful in the field of academic and costbenefits. Because some changes may require more
investment, it necessary to study the ways of improved
work. The guidelines applied evaluate the most
appropriate guidelines or sorted option on before-after,
thus appropriated according to the real situation and their
expense (Paul, 1983).
C-Control was the final stage of the Six Sigma
project. It was an important step, especially after an
updated or after changed to improve procedures of work, it
necessary to place the control system to maintain the
results for long-term. If one needed control, it required

1009

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com
both creating an accepted new process with continuous
evaluation of risks which needed to be analyze to ensure
no adverse effects.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS
I. Problem defining processes (Define Phase)
a) The overviews of software testing process studies
from case study of the software companies. The
authors started with system testing referring to
education, studied the process to test system,
assigning personnel, a device used for the test, to
prepare the data in testing and testing case’s document
prepared as a basic knowledge of research to
understand before making analyses and process
improvements (Thomas, 2005). By gathering
information from a document in the system, the
quality of each of the relevant procedures, the data
collected will be used to display information in tables,
graphs and flow charts to show in each step to make
more understand (Schaef, 1999) (Burke, 2002).
b) Select a sample in a study using the method of group
selection (Cluster Sampling) those were divided into 3
groups of 12 systems based on the relationship of
each group and selected the 3 systems to study
(Wang, 2006) (Petrovic, 2004). Those were System
Security Module, Card Interchange System Module
and System link Dispute Manager Module. After
already made a selection to collect classified data
from the fault testing system from retrospective
considered to System Security Module Card system
link Module and System Manager Module
Interchange Dispute to choose problems that occurred
and affected the most quality for improvement (MingHsien, 2008). The data collected has made the process
of successful end of each process, and then have
collected the fault information from all qualifying
issues that were significant. Then, using the principle
of pareto to prioritize of these problems.
c) Identification of the research problem, sorted from
most fault information primarily to find defects as
possible into the analysis made in order to find the
problem that caused most of these faults. The
information provided on each of the issues that arose
for finding fault percentage and cumulative
percentage used to qualify the significant problems
(Anite SAS, 1999).
d) Team preparation of related security problems were a
system of systems, three modules system, link
Manager, and system Module Card Interchange
Dispute Module, divided into 3 groups of works by
testing the old system and to test by the Six Sigma.
The audit team used in the same series (Biehl, 2004),
(Deming, 1975).
II. The measurement procedure (Phase Measure)
a) Measurement procedure, an error value as an
introduced to improve was started from creating a

flow chart (Mapping Process) of the test system in the
production of software. Awareness of the factors and
the relation of each process then leaded the associated
factors of knowledge problems and created a flow
chart (Mapping Process), a conceptual chart, tree or
fishbone diagram, respectively. To use the analyses of
the problems and questions why these problems
occurred (Tree Why-Why) In order to show causes
and effects related to the problems that resulting from
this process (Vriendt, 2002), (Florac, 1999).
b) Determining the process flow chart of the Process
Mapping to study the software test process map
(Graham, 1999). The procedure consisted of several
working steps. The first step of studied of quality and
development of production will be aware of the
factors and relationships in each step of the process.
The team must have an understanding of the level that
was capable of providing more details of their duties;
responsibilities reside in the production process in
order to be able to identify the problem. That may be
the cause of the fault (Harry, 1998). The result of this
step, noted which opportunity step to pose problems
and aware of the severity of the problems that arose
from the process to arrange the order in which to
consider the information and to edit it-have to do
further diagnostic analysis.
c) Provide a reason using the Fishbone chart (Cause and
Effect Diagram) and tree maps (Why-Why Tree
Diagram) were consider to the relationship of causes
and effects of the issues. The affected factor and
distinguish according to the characteristics of this type
of research selected by using Fishbone chart, tree
chart, and that analyzed the question why the problem
occurred (Tree Why-Why Diagram) (Pettichord,
1996), (Humphrey, 1998). Because of they wanted to
make the team aware of themes and approached to
analyze problems systematically. By showing the
relationship of the problem with the map in the form
of a reason that it was easier to understand and be able
to identify the cause of the problem was clear. The
initial reason given by the Tree diagram in the last slot
will be the determining factors in making the analyses
with the statistical principles (Rahnema, 1993).
III. The analysis phase (Analyze Phase)
a. Experimental method to find new faults
proportion of trials required to find a reason to verify if the
reason was not able to confirm the faith of needed to
accept the alternative (Graham, 1999). We chose it
because of there was no reason of fail to reject alternative.
In contrary, if the reason was to confirm the belief of the
acceptable test (Harry, 1998). The reasons for the
beginning of each treatment was analyzed by trials to find
out how a new type of defect and measure the rate of
crashes by controlling the other constant factors, then the
method used to compare the original method of
hypothesis testing to demonstrate the significantly
differences (Humphrey, 1998).

1010

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com
IV.The Process improvement (Improvement Phase)
a. The design factors that affect the process as
much as possible for the experiment because it made work
more efficient. By studying the old software and system
test to test the Six Sigma for development (Siebra, 2007).
b) The present guidelines to revise the fault issues when
we had the most appropriate values of each of the
individual processes that were fault. Get the value of
the response variables from the best process. The next
step will be proposed to revised guidelines, the error
problems, and some of fault issues that were not
difference but can be better improved (Walsh, 2004).
c) The original test, see Figure-2.

Figure-3. The process of software testing in Six Sigma.










Figure-2. Traditional software testing process.
d) The new testing process diagram of the
Six Sigma testing, see Figure-3.








Test analysis to define test scenario that
corresponded to the Test Requirement, Functional
Specification, Specification System and Business
Process Specification for use in the design,
development, Test Case and Test Script, as well as to
prioritize testing of the subject (Tortoise, 2008).
Test Case and Test Design by prepared the Test Script
that were used in the test, which was a detailed
Checklist covers every Feature or Function of the
software. Under test process when the testing was
completed to identify the results (pass/fail), and any
other details that were necessary evidence to be used
as a Checklists for delivering or receiving grants
(Raghuraman, 2001), (Simon, 2007).
Test
Implementation
activities
under
the
implementation process such as;
Produce a table in the Test Execution Schedule Test
Prepare Environment and data for use in testing.
Prepare the process that used to keep track of test
results.
Prepare the process that used to track the defect
caused by the tests.
Prepare tools
Test execution and test execution schedule
Do saving, editing, defect tracking that occurs.
Track the progress of testing.
Test controls according to plan.
Evaluating Exit Criteria and Reporting to check the
test results (Alexandre, 2006). For example, the
testing reports of all Test Execution Schedule or
Defect has been corrected that caused all of the testing

1011

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com









and whether or not and also the test progress report to
know, such as;
The number of test case, pass/fail test, or in the
process of being tested.
The number of defect found by severity (Severity)
(Status)
The number of change requests (CR) which were
occurred, etc. test closure activities an activity that
was subject to closure activities such as test events.
Check the completeness of the test that accordance
with the test execution schedule, and whether the
defect were detected, or not found (Allen, 2003).
Continue to deliver the work, incident data, test
results that generated by the tests and reports
processes, those involved the acknowledgement (Bae,
2007).
Storing important documents and test results
information incident arising from the various reports
on the test and its storage (Configuration Management
System)

The monitoring and evaluation of work
performed by comparing the experimental results (Design
of Experiment) were used to find out the optimal
conditions of improvement (David, 2005). Because of the
improved performance was satisfied. Thus, controls
(Control) system worked by creating a standard of work
(Operation Standard) for the process to avoid those
problems repeated.
APPLICATION MODULES
I. Process of selecting problem (Define Phase)
Storage in proportion to the problem of software
testing from April to May period 2014. Approximately six
weeks, the number of tested cases, 300 test was divided
into 50 cases a week tested in phase 1 (Phase 1) had
encountered a problem Error Run-time in case of defects
(errors during execution, caused unwittingly: Run-time
Error) The operations review was a 3.83%, 5.50%, 2.83
respectively can be seen in Figure-4.

V. The revision procedure (Phase Control)

Figure-4. The number of flaws of each system.

e. The problem analysis can be done using the
3W2H question as follows: (Brodman, 1994)
 What: found a defect in a test case Where Error Runtime: error during operation did not understand the
test data.
 When: April to October
 How: a report from the quality inspection
 How much: 3.83%, 2.83 %, 5.50%
Above information showed the main problems
that occurred and affected the most quality problems Error
Run-time by selecting this issue to continuity develop and
improve in the next step.

II. The measurement procedure (Phase Measure)
The study on workflow processes (Mapping
Process) was the study of the process and workflow
processes. It possible to show the process of running a
test case called the Run-time Error. That was an error
that was not a Syntax error, but had a logical error is
caused by a zero-divisor, or errors that occur while the
program was operated by either due to unexpected
conditions (Dorling, 1993) (Patcharin, 2005). The
unexpected conditions have shown in Figure-5.

1012

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Figure-5. Shows the factors that affect the occurrence of problems.
Measurement (Measure Phase) was found to cause
a major impact study that caused the three problems, which
consisted of operational program error due to lack of
customer knowledge tests. The analysis was done by three
reasons why, find out the average of each system and
compare your system's reliability (Garcia, 2003).
III. The analysis phase (Analyze Phase)
See Figure-6.

IV. The process improvement (Improve Phase)
Experimental analysis from the process mapping
was examined to identify the defect factors. The causes of
defect were found and adjusted to three main factors. By the
proposed ways to improve, the scaling procedure by
standard six sigma was applied to improve from the original
test process, monitor the process of the adjusted settings and
planning and execution process of working.

Figure-6. Six Sigma is the number of defects.

1013

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com
V.The process control (Phase Control)
Control of defects, which earned both direct and
indirect results. This was needed to control and prevented
the problem through monitoring problems, and shown
abnormalities of the process. This phase needed to control
both the internal and external factors by doing the design
and establish follow-up methods and quality control
operations (Garcia, 2003), (Goldenson, 1995).
a. Stages control to test the software division of
most Runtime Error. Control at this stage has made
modifications to the details of the software test process.
b. Results of observation after defected of control
defects. From the purpose of this research aimed to reduce
the problem of software test process by applying
principles of DMAIC. After an operation to correct the
problem, perform the check new data capture results show
dancing after adjustment on the part of the operating result
to comparison the effect of Error Runtime problems before
and after to making the adjustment, as well as control
factors.
CONCLUSIONS
This study aims to solve the problem of the
software testing process by use the example case of
Accellence Company, Thailand by conducting a study on
the problems and Run-time Error, Logical Syntax Error,
consisting of a system of work by using the DMAIC
process. Mostly of the Six Sigma approach performance
are as follows:
a)

Factors that affect Run-time Error problems, other
errors, Logical, and Syntax Errors.
b) Operational error
c) The lack of knowledge test and customer needs
This research also illustrates the principle of
DMAIC can be used as a tool to reducing many error in
software testing processes such as Run-time problem, Bug,
Error, Logical and Syntax Error that mostly occurred in
the software testing process. Because of they can analyze
to find the causes of the problem with brainstorming,
collecting all of causes as well as to find out the cause of
the problems, defect work processes using charts from
Fishbone (Fishbone Diagram) and Tree (Tree Diagram).
Moreover, we can determine the problem, consideration,
execute on the experimental design to see whether
appropriate factors that are causing the problem. Then the
run-time error, syntax error, logical error was solved until
reduction of defect reflected the use of Six Sigma,
standard and quality improvement can reduce the number
of defects, and enhancing more quality of work.
REFERENCS
Apichat S. (2012). Process Improvement Using Six Sigma
Concept: Case Study of Hard Disk Manufacturing by
DMAIC, Rajamangala University of Technology
Thanyaburi.

Allen P., Ramachandran M. and Abushama H. (2003).
PRISMS: An approach to software process improvement
for small to medium enterprises. ICQS '03: Proceedings of
the 3rd International Conference on Quality Software.
Alexandre S., Renault A. and Habra N. (2006). OWPL:A
Gradual Approach for Software Process Improvement In
SMEs. InEUROMICRO-SEAA.
Anite S. (1999). 12447D/UMOOI GSM-9OO/DCSI800
/PCS-1900. Stand Alone Simulator User Manual, rel. 3.0,
AniteTelecoms Ltd, Fleet, Hampshire, UK.
Bae D H. (2007). Software process improvement for
small organizations. In COMPSAC '07: Proceedings of the
31st Annual International Computer Software and
Applications Conference - Vol. 1, 2007.Washington, DC,
USA. IEEE Computer Society.
Bernstein L. and Christine M. Y. (1993). Testing Network
Management Software. Journal of Network and System
Management.
Biehl R. (2004). Six Sigma for Software, IEEE Software.
Brayton R. and Cong J. (2009). Electronic Design
Automation Past, Present, and Future. NSF Workshop
Report. July.
Brodman G. and Johnson D L. (1994). What small
business and small organizations say about the cmm:
experience report. In ICSE '94: Proceedings of the 16th
International Conference on Software Engineering, Los
Alamitos, CA, USA.
Brownlie R., James P. and Madhav S. P. (1992). Robust
Testing of AT&T PMX/StarMAIL Using OATS. AT&T
Technical Journal, Vol. 71. No.3, May/June.
Bubevski V. (2008). An Application of Simulation in
Software Reliability Prediction. Palisade™ Risk &
Decision Analysis Conference, New York City, 13-14
November.
Bubevski V. (2009). A Simulation Approach to Six Sigma
in Software Development. International Simulation
Multiconference, Istanbul, 13-16 July.
Burke E. K. and Petrovic S. (2002). Recent Research
Directions in Automated Timetabling. EJOR. 140(2).
David W. (2005). CMMI and Six Sigma Synergy. In
SEPG '05: Software Engineering Process Group,
Washington State Convention Center, Seattle, WA USA,
March. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering
Institute.

1014

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com
Deming W. (1975). On probability as a basis for action.
The American Statistician.
Dorling, A. (1993). Software Process Improvement and
Capability Determination. Software Quality Journal.
Florac W. and Carleton. A. (1999). Measuring the
software process: statistical process control for software
process improvement. The SEI Series in Software
Engineering, Addison-Wesley.
Frederick P., Brooks Jr. (1995). The Mythical ManMonth(Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary
Edition). Addison-Wesley.
Garcia, S., Miluk, G., Cepeda, S L. and Staley, M. (2003).
CMMI FOR SMALL BUSINESS PILOT project. In 3rd
Annual CMMI Technology Conference and User Gsroup,
November.
Gokhale S.S., Lyu M.R. and Trivedi K.S. (1997),
Reliability Simulation of Fault-Tolerant Softwareand
Systems. Proceedings of Pacific Rim International
Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Systems.
Goldenson D. R. and Herbsleb J. D. (1995). After the
Appraisal. A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement,
Technical Report 95tr009, Software Engineering Institute,
Pittsburgh, August.
Graham D. and Fewster M. (1999). Software Test
Automation:Effective Use of Test Execution Tools.
Addison Wesley.
Harry M. (1998). Six Sigma: A Breakthrough Strategy for
Profitability. Quality Progress.
Humphrey W. (1998). Characterizing the Software
Process. IEEE Software.
Kaur J. (2005). A Balanced Scorecard for Systemic
Quality in Electronic Design Automation: An
Implementation Method for an EDA Company. ISQED.
Leveille R. (2011). Test Strategy for High Quality EDA
Software. WCSQ.
Lyu Michael R. (1996). Handbook of Software Reliability
Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press
Robert M. (1985). Orthogonal Latin Squares:
AnApplication of Experiment Design to Compiler Testing.
Communications of the ACM. Vol. 128, No.10, October.
Robert C.T., and Michael R. L. (2008). Software
Reliability Simulation. Chapter 16, Handbook ofSoftware
Reliability Engineering, IEEE ComputerSociety Press.

Li Ming-Hsien C., Al-rafaie A. and Cheng-Yu Y. (2008).
DMAIC Approach to Imprve the Capability of SMT
Solder printing Process. IEEE Transactions on Electronics
Packaging, Manufacturing. Vol 31, No. 2, April.
Ng A. I., and Markov L. (2005). Toward Quality EDA
Tools and Tool Flows through High-Performance
Computing. ISQED.
Paul, B., Bennett, L., Fox., Linus, E., and Schrage. (1983)
. A Guide to Simulation. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Patcharin O. (2005). Integrating Lean Six Sigma and
CMMI into Enterprise by System Dynamics: Case Study:
Spansion (Thailand) Limited. Industrial Engineering, King
Mongkut’s Institute of Technology, North Bangkok.
Pettichord B. (1996). Success with Test Automation,
Proceedings of the Ninth International Software Quality
Week. San Francisco, California, USA.
Petrovic S. and Burke E. K. (2004). University
timetabling. Ch. 45in the Handbook of Scheduling:
Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis (eds. J.
Leung), Chapman Hall/CRCPress.
Raghuraman R. (2001). EDA software: quality is not
optional. Ubiquity. June.
Rahnema M. (1993). Overview of the GSM system and
protocol architecture. IEEE Communications Magazine.
Reuven Y. R. and Dirk P. K. (2008). Simulation and the
Monte Carlo Method, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Santarini M. (2003). Panelists find EDA tool quality
lacking. EETimes.
Schaef A. (1999). A Survey of Automated Timetabling.
Artificial Intelligence Review.
Siebra C., Freitas A., Costa P., Freitas R., Silva F. and
Santos. (2007). A. An Investigation into the Use of AI
Planning for Handsets Network Test Automation,
Proceedings. International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence and Applications, Innsbruck, Austria.
Simon K. (2007). DMAIC versus DMADV, Six Sigma
WebPage,2007.Available.in:http://www.isixsigma.com/lib
rary/content/c001211a.asp
Tatsumi. and Keizo. (1987). Test Case Design Support
System. Proceedings of ICQC, Tokyo.
Thomas P., (McGraw-Hill). (2005). The Six Sigma
Handbook.

1015

VOL. 10, NO. 3, FEBRUARY 2015

ISSN 1819-6608

ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2015 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com
TortoiseSVN. (2008). http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/, June.
Von Mayrhauser, A, et al. (1993). On the need for
simulationfor better characterization of software
reliability. Proceedings. Fourth International Symposium
on Software Reliability Engineering.

Yaacov G. B., Suratkar P., Holliday M. and Bartleson K.
(2002). Advancing Quality of EDA Software. ISQE.

Vriendt De., Laine J., Lerouge P. and Xiaofeng, X.
(2002). Mobile network evolution: a revolution on the
move. IEEE Communications Magazine.
Wang Z. and Sun J. (2006). Application of DMAIC on
Service Improvement of Bank Counter. IEEE.
Walsh J. (2004). combining the Power of DMAIC with
Testing Process, Six Sigma WebPage, 2004. Available in:
http://finance.isixsigma.com/library/content/c04040.
Yaacov G. B., Bjork L. and Stone E. P. (2000). Advancing
Customer-Perceived Quality of the EDA Industry. ISQED.

1016

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close