Scrum agile software project evaluation method, device, electronic device and storage medium

Abstract

The present disclosure provides a Scrum agile software project evaluation method, device, electronic device, storage medium and computer program product, which can be applied to the financial field, computer field or other fields. The above-mentioned Scrum agile software project evaluation method includes: selecting evaluation indicators based on a first preset condition, and establishing a Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the first preset condition; using the hierarchical analysis method to calculate the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model; combining the second preset condition to correct the weight of each indicator, and establishing an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the corrected weight and evaluation indicator; and using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model to calculate the evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present disclosure relates to the field of computer technology, and in particular to a Scrum agile software project evaluation method, device, electronic device and storage medium. Background Art

[0002] There are two main existing software project evaluation methods: one is to adopt the earned value management method; the other is to set indicators for software project progress, requirements, quality and other aspects, continuously measure during the implementation of the software project, and finally determine the comprehensive score of the project by setting some general indicators and corresponding weights of the indicators through weighted method.

[0003] However, the above two evaluation methods also have certain defects. For example, the first method cannot distinguish between the progress of basic project constraints and the progress based on non-constraints, which leads to the delay of project completion. Moreover, from the data of earned value analysis, even if the project is carried out stably according to the predetermined plan, it cannot guarantee the final generation of the expected software product. Although the second method can monitor important aspects of the project such as progress, cost, and quality through certain quantitative means, this method lacks adaptation to Scrum agile development, cannot measure the performance of projects using agile development methods, and is not combined with agile development methods. Summary of the invention

[0004] In view of this, the present disclosure proposes a Scrum agile software project assessment method, device, electronic device, storage medium and computer program product, in order to at least partially solve the above-mentioned technical problems.

[0005] According to one aspect of the present disclosure, a Scrum agile software project evaluation method is provided, including: selecting evaluation indicators based on a first preset condition, and establishing a Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the evaluation indicators; using a hierarchical analysis method to calculate the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model; correcting the weight of each indicator in combination with a second preset condition, and establishing an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the corrected weights and evaluation indicators; and using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model to calculate the evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project.

[0006] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the Scrum agile software project evaluation model includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a solution layer; wherein the target layer is the Scrum agile software project evaluation; in the criterion layer, the secondary indicators affecting the Scrum agile software project evaluation include progress, cost, quality and efficiency; in the solution layer, the tertiary indicators affecting the progress include: plan execution deviation rate, progress performance index, progress deviation and project plan detail; the tertiary indicators affecting the cost include: resource turnover rate, resource utilization rate, resource load rate, cost performance index and cost deviation; the tertiary indicators affecting the quality include: defect rate per thousand lines of code, one-time acceptance pass rate, production environment defect response time, test environment defect response time, severity level defect density and test environment defect convergence trend; the tertiary indicators affecting the efficiency include: man-day code volume, per capita production capacity, user story flow rate and parallel demand throughput.

[0007] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the analytic hierarchy process is used to calculate the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model, including: constructing a judgment matrix at each level according to the Scrum agile software project evaluation model and the expert scoring method; calculating the weight of the indicator at each level according to the judgment matrix at each level, and performing a consistency test on the judgment matrix at each level. If the consistency test passes, the weight of the indicator at each level is obtained; and the weight of each third-level indicator in the target layer is obtained by multiplying the weights between adjacent upper and lower levels.

[0008] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the judgment matrix satisfies:

[0009] A=(a ij ) n×n

[0010] Among them, a ij Indicates the importance of indicator i compared with indicator j. According to Saaty's 1-9 scaling method, the judgment matrix is ​​constructed. In adjacent levels, the related lower-level indicators are compared pairwise. ij =1 means that indicator i and indicator j are equally important, a ij =3 means that indicator i is slightly more important than indicator j, a ij =5 means that indicator i is significantly more important than indicator j. ij =7 means that indicator i is more important than indicator j, a ij =9 means that indicator j is absolutely more important than indicator j, a ij =2m (m=1, 2, 3, 4) means that the importance of index i compared with index j is between the above two adjacent scales.

[0011] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the weights of indicators at each level are calculated according to the judgment matrices at each level, and a consistency check is performed on the judgment matrices at each level. If the consistency check is passed, the weights of indicators at each level are obtained, including: using the geometric mean method to calculate the weights of indicators at each level; performing a consistency check on the judgment matrices at each level. If the judgment matrices pass the consistency check, it means that the calculated weights of indicators at each level can serve as weights of different indicators.

[0012] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, assuming that s experts are invited to give scores, the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the kth expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer satisfies:

[0013]

[0014] In the formula, It represents the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the k-th expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer, Represents the corresponding elements in the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation;

[0015] Combining the evaluation results of s experts, we can get the weight ω of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator in the previous layer. i T satisfy:

[0016]

[0017] Among them, the weight of the evaluation result of the kth expert is p (k) The following relations are satisfied:

[0018]

[0019] The consistency test is performed on the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator obtained by the k-th expert evaluation with the i-th indicator of the previous layer, where the consistency indicator formula satisfies:

[0020]

[0021] CI (k) Satisfies the following relationship:

[0022]

[0023] In the formula, is the maximum characteristic root of the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation, n (k) is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix The eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenvector of (k)is the consistency ratio value, and RI is the average random consistency index value.

[0024] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, selecting an evaluation indicator based on a first preset condition includes: selecting an evaluation indicator based on an analysis of factors affecting Scrum agile software projects and principles for selecting indicators; wherein the principles for selecting indicators include scope indicator selection principles, cost indicator selection principles, quality indicator selection principles, and time indicator selection principles.

[0025] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the weight of each indicator is modified in combination with the second preset condition, including: according to the characteristics of the Scrum agile software project, the weight of each indicator is modified in combination with the expert experience method.

[0026] According to another aspect of the present disclosure, a Scrum agile software project evaluation device is provided, comprising: a construction module, for selecting evaluation indicators based on a first preset condition, and establishing a Scrum agile software project evaluation model accordingly; a calculation module, for calculating the weights of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model using a hierarchical analysis method; a correction module, for correcting the weights of each indicator in combination with a second preset condition, and establishing an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the corrected weights and evaluation indicators; and an evaluation module, for calculating the evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model.

[0027] According to another aspect of the present disclosure, an electronic device is provided, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory for storing one or more programs, wherein when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors are enabled to execute and implement the Scrum agile software project assessment method as described above.

[0028] According to another aspect of the present disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, on which executable instructions are stored. When the instructions are executed by a processor, the processor executes the Scrum agile software project assessment method as described above.

[0029] According to another aspect of the present disclosure, a computer program product is provided, including a computer program, which implements the Scrum agile software project assessment method as described above when executed by a processor.

[0030] It should be understood that the content described in this section is not intended to identify the key or important features of the embodiments of the present disclosure, nor is it intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure. Other features of the present disclosure will become easily understood through the following description. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0031] The above and other objects, features and advantages of the present disclosure will become more apparent through the following description of the embodiments of the present disclosure with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

[0032] Figure 1 The application scenarios of the Scrum agile software project assessment method, device, electronic device, storage medium, and computer program product according to the embodiments of the present disclosure are schematically shown;

[0033] Figure 2 A flowchart of a Scrum agile software project evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown;

[0034] Figure 3 A flowchart of a Scrum agile software project evaluation method according to another embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown;

[0035] Figure 4 A flowchart of a Scrum agile software project evaluation method according to another embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown;

[0036] Figure 5A Schematically shows Figure 4 A flowchart of an implementation method of operation S422;

[0037] Figure 5B Schematically shows Figure 4 A flowchart of another implementation of operation S422;

[0038] Figure 6 A block diagram of a Scrum agile software project evaluation device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown;

[0039] Figure 7 A block diagram schematically shows a Scrum agile software project assessment device according to another embodiment of the present disclosure; and

[0040] Figure 8 A block diagram of an electronic device suitable for implementing the Scrum agile software project assessment method according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0041] Hereinafter, embodiments of the present disclosure will be described with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, it should be understood that these descriptions are exemplary only and are not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure. In the following detailed description, for ease of explanation, many specific details are set forth to provide a comprehensive understanding of the embodiments of the present disclosure. However, it is apparent that one or more embodiments may also be implemented without these specific details. In addition, in the following description, descriptions of known structures and technologies are omitted to avoid unnecessary confusion of the concepts of the present disclosure.

[0042] The terms used herein are only for describing specific embodiments and are not intended to limit the present disclosure. The terms "comprise", "include", etc. used herein indicate the existence of the features, steps, operations and / or components, but do not exclude the existence or addition of one or more other features, steps, operations or components.

[0043] All terms (including technical and scientific terms) used herein have the meanings commonly understood by those skilled in the art, unless otherwise defined. It should be noted that the terms used herein should be interpreted as having a meaning consistent with the context of this specification, and should not be interpreted in an idealized or overly rigid manner.

[0044] In the case of using expressions such as "at least one of A, B, and C, etc.", it should generally be interpreted in accordance with the meaning of the expression generally understood by those skilled in the art (for example, "a system having at least one of A, B, and C" should include but is not limited to a system having A alone, B alone, C alone, A and B, A and C, B and C, and / or A, B, C, etc.). In the case of using expressions such as "at least one of A, B, or C, etc.", it should generally be interpreted in accordance with the meaning of the expression generally understood by those skilled in the art (for example, "a system having at least one of A, B, or C" should include but is not limited to a system having A alone, B alone, C alone, A and B, A and C, B and C, and / or A, B, C, etc.).

[0045] Some block diagrams and / or flow charts are shown in the accompanying drawings. It should be understood that some boxes or combinations thereof in the block diagrams and / or flow charts can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, or other programmable data processing device, so that these instructions can create a device for implementing the functions / operations described in these block diagrams and / or flow charts when executed by the processor. The technology of the present disclosure can be implemented in the form of hardware and / or software (including firmware, microcode, etc.). In addition, the technology of the present disclosure can take the form of a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which can be used by an instruction execution system or used in conjunction with an instruction execution system.

[0046] The embodiments of the present disclosure provide a Scrum agile software project evaluation method, device, electronic device, storage medium and computer program product, which can be used in the financial field, computer field or other fields, without limitation herein. The Scrum agile software project evaluation method includes: selecting evaluation indicators based on a first preset condition, and establishing a Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the evaluation indicators; using the hierarchical analysis method to calculate the weights of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model; correcting the weights of each indicator in combination with the second preset condition, and establishing an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the corrected weights and evaluation indicators; and using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model to calculate the evaluation results of the Scrum agile software project.

[0047] Figure 1 The following schematically illustrates an application scenario diagram of the Scrum agile software project assessment method, device, electronic device, storage medium, and computer program product according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. It should be noted that: Figure 1 What is shown is merely an example of a system architecture to which the embodiments of the present disclosure can be applied, in order to help those skilled in the art understand the technical content of the present disclosure, but it does not mean that the embodiments of the present disclosure cannot be used in other devices, systems, environments or scenarios.

[0048] like Figure 1 As shown, the application scenario 100 according to this embodiment may include terminal devices 101, 102, 103, a network 104, and a server 105. The network 104 is used to provide a medium for a communication link between the terminal devices 101, 102, 103 and the server 105. The network 104 may include various connection types, such as wired, wireless communication links or optical fiber cables, etc.

[0049] Users can use terminal devices 101, 102, 103 to interact with server 105 through network 104 to receive or send messages, etc. Various communication client applications can be installed on terminal devices 101, 102, 103, such as shopping applications, web browser applications, search applications, instant messaging tools, email clients, social platform software, etc. (only examples).

[0050] The terminal devices 101 , 102 , and 103 may be various electronic devices having a display screen and supporting web browsing, including but not limited to smart phones, tablet computers, laptop computers, and desktop computers.

[0051] The server 105 may be a server that provides various services, such as a background management server (only an example) that provides support for websites browsed by users using the terminal devices 101, 102, and 103. The background management server may analyze and process the received data such as user requests, and feed back the processing results (such as web pages, information, or data obtained or generated according to user requests) to the terminal device.

[0052] It should be noted that the Scrum agile software project evaluation method provided in the embodiment of the present disclosure can generally be executed by the server 105. Accordingly, the Scrum agile software project evaluation device provided in the embodiment of the present disclosure can generally be set in the server 105. The Scrum agile software project evaluation method provided in the embodiment of the present disclosure can also be executed by a server or server cluster that is different from the server 105 and can communicate with the terminal devices 101, 102, 103 and / or the server 105. Accordingly, the Scrum agile software project evaluation device provided in the embodiment of the present disclosure can also be set in a server or server cluster that is different from the server 105 and can communicate with the terminal devices 101, 102, 103 and / or the server 105.

[0053] It should be understood that Figure 1 The number of terminal devices, networks and servers in the embodiment is only for illustration. Any number of terminal devices, networks and servers may be provided according to implementation requirements.

[0054] The following will be combined Figures 2 to 5B The Scrum agile software project evaluation method of the embodiment of the present disclosure is described in detail.

[0055] Figure 2 The flowchart of the Scrum agile software project evaluation method according to the embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown.

[0056] like Figure 2 As shown, the Scrum agile software project assessment method 200 specifically includes operations S210 to S240.

[0057] In operation S210, an evaluation indicator is selected based on a first preset condition, and a Scrum agile software project evaluation model is established accordingly.

[0058] In the implementation of the present disclosure, the above-mentioned first preset condition is used to select evaluation indicators suitable for Scrum agile software projects, wherein the first preset condition can be based on the existing project management evaluation model and combined with the evaluation setting of the actual management situation of the Scrum agile software project, and is not limited here.

[0059] For example, based on the first preset condition, an evaluation indicator can be selected as the initial indicator from the project management evaluation model based on earned value analysis, and then the factors affecting the evaluation of Scrum agile software projects are analyzed through expert interviews, project data and implementation environment analysis, so as to screen and adjust the above preliminary indicators, thereby preliminarily obtaining evaluation indicators suitable for Scrum agile software projects, and establishing a Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the evaluation indicators. Subsequently, the hierarchical analysis method is used to quantitatively analyze the importance of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model to the overall evaluation goal, so as to further adjust and screen each indicator in the evaluation model, and then obtain the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model.

[0060] In the disclosed embodiment, the above-mentioned Scrum agile software project evaluation model includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a solution layer. Among them, the target layer is the Scrum agile software project evaluation. In the criterion layer, the secondary indicators that affect the Scrum agile software project evaluation include progress, cost, quality and efficiency. In the solution layer, the third-level indicators that affect the progress include: plan execution deviation rate, progress performance index, progress deviation and project plan detail. The third-level indicators that affect the cost include: resource flow rate, resource utilization rate, resource load rate, cost performance index and cost deviation. The third-level indicators that affect quality include: thousand lines of code defect rate, acceptance pass rate, production environment defect response time, test environment defect response time, severe level defect density and test environment defect convergence trend. The third-level indicators that affect efficiency include: man-day code volume, per capita production capacity, user story flow rate and parallel demand throughput. Specifically, the above-mentioned Scrum agile software project evaluation model is shown in Table 1.

[0061] Table 1 Scrum agile software project evaluation model

[0062]

[0063]

[0064] It should be noted that the above examples of indicators at each level in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model are only exemplary and are intended to help those skilled in the art understand the solution of the present disclosure. The Scrum agile software project evaluation model described in the present disclosure is not limited to the above description. The indicators at each level in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model can be adjusted according to the evaluation requirements and the actual situation of the project, and are not limited here.

[0065] After preliminarily confirming the indicators at each level in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model, the hierarchical analysis method can be used to calculate the weights of the indicators at each level. Then, based on the calculated weights, the importance of each indicator to the overall goal (i.e., the Scrum agile software project evaluation A) (i.e., the weights of the indicators at each level) can be quantitatively analyzed and evaluated, and the Scrum agile software project evaluation model can be adaptively adjusted.

[0066] In operation S220, the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model is calculated using the analytic hierarchy process.

[0067] After the Scrum agile software project evaluation model is established, the weights of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model can be calculated using the hierarchical analysis method, which can include the following operations:

[0068] First, the importance of each secondary indicator in the criterion layer to the target layer (evaluation of the overall goal) is quantitatively analyzed and evaluated by the hierarchical analysis method, that is, the weight of each secondary indicator in the criterion layer in the target layer is calculated. Through the above quantitative analysis and evaluation, the importance ranking of each secondary indicator in the criterion layer to the target layer can be determined. For example, the weights of each secondary indicator in the criterion layer in the target layer calculated by the hierarchical analysis method are ω 1 ,ω 2 ,ω 3 and ω 4 , where ω 3 >ω 4 >ω 1 >ω 2 , then the importance of each secondary indicator in the criterion layer to the target layer is ranked as follows: quality B 3 >Efficiency B 4 >Progress B 1 >Cost B 2 .

[0069] Then, the analytic hierarchy process is used to quantitatively analyze and evaluate the importance of each third-level indicator in the solution layer to the corresponding second-level indicator in the criterion layer, that is, to calculate the weight of each third-level indicator in the solution layer to each second-level indicator in the criterion layer. For example, the analytic hierarchy process is used to calculate the third-level indicators that affect the progress in the solution layer, that is, the plan execution deviation rate C 11 , Schedule Performance Index C 12 、Schedule deviation C 13 and project plan detail C 14 The corresponding weights are ω 11 ,ω 12 ,ω 13 and ω 14 . According to ω 11 ,ω 12 ,ω 13and ω 14 And ω 1 ,ω 2 ,ω 3 and ω 4 The weight of each third-level indicator in the solution layer in the target layer can be calculated. Therefore, by using the hierarchical analysis method to calculate the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model, the implementation of the project can be quantitatively analyzed and evaluated.

[0070] In operation S230, the weights of the various indicators are modified in combination with the second preset condition, and an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model is established according to the modified weights and evaluation indicators.

[0071] Since Scrum agile software projects have their own characteristics, for example, for different stages of different projects, the indicators that affect the progress may be quite different, or a certain indicator or some indicators are no longer suitable for evaluating Scrum agile software projects at a certain stage. At this time, it is necessary to adjust the weights of various indicators as appropriate to make the weights of each indicator more suitable for the Scrum agile software project evaluation.

[0072] The second preset condition is set in order to correct the weights of various indicators calculated according to the analytic hierarchy process. The second preset condition can be set according to the actual situation of the Scrum agile software project and the project characteristics. For example, a correction factor can be set based on the obtained weight to meet the evaluation needs of different projects, or an appropriate judgment method can be adopted. When facing different Scrum agile software projects, the corrected results can be adaptively given based on the judgment method to meet the needs of different projects. For example, when a certain indicator is no longer suitable for evaluating the current stage of the project, the weight of the indicator can be adjusted to a preset range, and so on. The specific correction method is not limited here.

[0073] In this embodiment, an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model is established based on the revised weights and corresponding evaluation indicators to facilitate subsequent Scrum agile software project evaluation.

[0074] In operation S240, an evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project is calculated using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model.

[0075] In this operation, the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model can be used to collect and count the historical data of the project to form a data baseline. After the subsequent project is implemented, it will be compared with the current baseline data to finally quantitatively analyze the implementation of the project.

[0076] The technical solution in the disclosed embodiment quantitatively analyzes the indicators preliminarily screened based on the hierarchical analysis method, and modifies each indicator in combination with the characteristics of the Scrum agile software project, thereby establishing an evaluation model suitable for the evaluation needs of the Scrum agile software project. Based on the constructed evaluation model, the disclosed embodiment can quantitatively analyze the implementation of the project, and the evaluation results can intuitively show the importance of each indicator to the overall evaluation goal, providing a quantitative basis for project decision-making, and also providing targeted opinions for subsequent improvements, which helps developers to quickly respond to changes in requirements and improve the quality of project implementation.

[0077] Figure 3 The flowchart of the Scrum agile software project evaluation method according to another embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown.

[0078] like Figure 3 As shown, the Scrum agile software project assessment method 300 specifically includes operations S310 to S340. Operations S320 to S340 are respectively implemented in the same manner as operations S220 to S240, and the repeated parts will not be described in detail.

[0079] In operation S310, an evaluation indicator is selected based on an analysis of factors affecting the Scrum agile software project and a principle for selecting indicators.

[0080] In the disclosed embodiment, evaluation indicators are selected as initial indicators from a project management evaluation model based on earned value analysis according to an analysis of factors affecting Scrum agile software projects and the above-mentioned principle of selecting indicators. Then, factors affecting the evaluation of Scrum agile software projects are analyzed through expert interviews, project data, and implementation environment analysis, so as to screen and adjust the above-mentioned preliminary indicators, thereby preliminarily obtaining evaluation indicators suitable for Scrum agile software projects, and establishing a Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the evaluation indicators.

[0081] In the embodiments of the present disclosure, the so-called principles for selecting indicators may include, for example, a scope indicator selection principle, a cost indicator selection principle, a quality indicator selection principle, and a time indicator selection principle.

[0082] Specifically, the scope and time indicator selection principle: Since the scope of the Scrum agile software development project will be adjusted continuously with the iteration, scope-related indicators are not applicable in the field of agile development. The characteristic of agile development is that it is carried out through continuous iterations. The time of each cycle in the Scrum agile software project is the same, so the simple time indicator has no effective meaning in agile development. Instead, the completion of the work is measured by the progress of the tasks in each cycle.

[0083] Principles for selecting cost indicators: Scrum agile software projects are not suitable for analysis using the traditional earned value model, because in Scrum agile software projects, the planned workload of each iteration is not completely consistent. Therefore, the cost investment of a certain iteration and the actual workload completed by user stories can be considered as indicators for analysis.

[0084] Principles for selecting quality indicators: Scrum is the most important model in agile development. It abandons the traditional process of requirements analysis, interface design, code writing, software testing and deployment. Instead, it turns the entire life cycle into multiple iterative stages, each of which consists of several or all of the above processes. Therefore, the number of defects related to requirements, design stage defects, coding stage defects, and testing stage defects can be integrated into the number of defects to count the number of defects handled in different cycles.

[0085] In operation S320, the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model is calculated using the analytic hierarchy process.

[0086] In operation S330, the weights of the various indicators are modified in combination with the second preset condition, and an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model is established according to the modified weights and evaluation indicators.

[0087] In operation S340, an evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project is calculated using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model.

[0088] In some embodiments of the present disclosure, in the above operation S330, the weight of each indicator is modified in combination with the second preset condition, specifically including: according to the characteristics of the Scrum agile software project, the weight of each indicator is modified in combination with the expert experience method, so that the modified indicators and their weights are consistent with the Scrum agile software project.

[0089] Specifically, since the Scrum agile software project has its own characteristics, the various indicators that affect the evaluation of the Scrum agile software project may have large differences at different stages of different projects. At this time, the corresponding indicators need to be adjusted to adapt to the needs of the project. For example, the weights of each indicator can be modified in combination with the characteristics of the Scrum agile software project itself and expert experience, so that the weights of each indicator are more compatible with the evaluation of the Scrum agile software project. For example, in the Scrum agile software project, it lacks practical significance to measure the detail of the project plan. Doing so will cause the Scrum activities to be cut into detailed plans and unable to be executed in a coherent manner. Therefore, the detailed requirements for the plan can be reduced as appropriate. At this time, the weight of the project plan detail can be adjusted based on expert experience.

[0090] Figure 4 The flowchart of the Scrum agile software project evaluation method according to another embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown.

[0091] like Figure 4 As shown, the Scrum agile software project assessment method 400 specifically includes operations S410 to S440. Among them, operations S410, S430 to S440 are implemented in the same manner as operations S210, S230 to S240, respectively, and the repeated parts will not be repeated in detail. In the embodiment of the present disclosure, operation S420 specifically includes operations S421 to S423.

[0092] In operation S410, an evaluation indicator is selected based on a first preset condition, and a Scrum agile software project evaluation model is established accordingly.

[0093] In operation S421, judgment matrices at various levels are constructed according to the Scrum agile software project evaluation model and the expert scoring method.

[0094] Specifically, in this operation, the four secondary indicators in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model and the tertiary indicators under each secondary indicator are compared and assigned values, and judgment matrices at various levels can be obtained.

[0095] Specifically, in the embodiment of the present disclosure, the judgment matrices at each level constructed according to the Scrum agile software project evaluation model and the expert scoring method satisfy the following relationship:

[0096] A=(a ij ) n×n

[0097] Among them, a ij Indicates the importance of indicator i compared with indicator j. According to Saaty's 1-9 scaling method, a judgment matrix is ​​constructed. In adjacent levels, the related lower-level indicators are compared pairwise to obtain the importance of each indicator. The detailed scaling values ​​are shown in Table 2.

[0098] Table 2 Relative importance scale

[0099]

[0100] Combining the expert scoring method and the indicator importance evaluation principle in Table 2, for example, the four secondary indicators in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model shown in Table 1 can be compared and assigned values ​​to obtain the fourth-order judgment matrix A shown in Table 3.

[0101] Table 3 Judgment Matrix A

[0102]

[0103] Furthermore, the fourth-order judgment matrix A in Table 3 can be expressed as follows:

[0104]

[0105] From the above fourth-order judgment matrix A, we can know that a 13 =1 / 7, indicating that the ratio of the importance of progress to quality is 1 / 7, that is, experts believe that progress is very unimportant compared to quality.

[0106] For example, by comparing and assigning values ​​to the four third-level indicators that affect the progress in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model shown in Table 1, we can obtain the fourth-order judgment matrix B shown in Table 4. 1 .

[0107] Table 4 Judgment Matrix B 1

[0108]

[0109] Similarly, the fourth-order judgment matrix B shown in Table 4 1 It can be expressed as follows:

[0110]

[0111] From the above fourth-order judgment matrix B 1 It can be seen that b 13 =1 / 3, indicating that the importance ratio of the plan execution deviation rate to the schedule deviation is 1 / 3, that is, experts believe that the plan execution deviation rate is slightly less important than the schedule deviation.

[0112] Similarly, based on the judgment matrix construction method described above, we can construct the cost B 2 、Quality B 3 and Efficacy B 4 The judgment matrix is ​​not described here.

[0113] It should be noted that the above description of the relative importance scales between the indicators in each judgment matrix is ​​only exemplary to help those skilled in the art understand the technical solution of the present disclosure. The judgment matrix constructed in the embodiment of the present disclosure is not limited to this and can be obtained by evaluation based on actual conditions, which is not limited here.

[0114] In operation S422, the weight of the index at each level is calculated according to the judgment matrix at each level, and a consistency check is performed on the judgment matrix at each level. If the consistency check passes, the weight of the index at each level is obtained.

[0115] In this operation, the weights of indicators at each level are calculated based on the judgment matrix constructed according to the above method, and a consistency test is performed on the judgment matrix at each level. If the consistency test passes, it means that the calculated weights of indicators at each level are valid and can be used as the weights of each indicator in the model.

[0116] Figure 5A and Figure 5B The flowcharts of the method for calculating the weights of indicators at each level according to the judgment matrix in the embodiment of the present disclosure are respectively shown. Figure 5A and Figure 5B To illustrate an example implementation of the above operation S422.

[0117] like Figure 5A As shown, the method for calculating the weights of indicators at each level according to the judgment matrix includes operations S510 to S552.

[0118] In operation S510, a judgment matrix of each level is constructed.

[0119] In the embodiment of the present disclosure, the judgment matrices at various levels constructed according to the Scrum agile software project evaluation model and the expert scoring method include: judgment matrices A, B 1 , B 2 , B 3 and B 4 Among them, the judgment matrix A represents the importance of the four secondary indicators evaluated by experts to the overall goal, and the judgment matrix B 1 , B 2 , B 3 and B 4 It represents the importance of each third-level indicator evaluated by experts to the corresponding second-level indicator. For example, the judgment matrix B 1 Characterizes the three-level indicator plan execution deviation rate C 11 , Schedule Performance Index C 12 、Schedule deviation C 13 and project plan detail C 14 Progress of secondary indicator B 1 The method of constructing the judgment matrix at each level is the same or similar to the process described above, and will not be repeated here.

[0120] In operation S520, the weights of the indicators at each level are calculated using the geometric mean method.

[0121] Based on the fourth-order judgment matrix A, the geometric mean method is used to calculate the weight of each secondary indicator in the target layer.

[0122] Specifically, assuming that s experts are invited to score, the Scrum agile software project evaluation A considers four conditions: progress B 1 Cost B 2 、Quality B3 and Efficacy B 4 , the kth expert gives the judgment matrix A (k) ,Right now The judgment matrix A (k) Perform geometric mean calculation to obtain the judgment matrix A (k) The characteristic vector (W (k) ) T , which satisfies the following relationship:

[0123]

[0124] in,

[0125]

[0126] In the formula, a ij (k) Represents the judgment matrix A given by the kth expert (k) The corresponding values ​​in .

[0127] For the eigenvector (W (k) ) T After normalization, the weight of the ith indicator of the criterion layer evaluated by the kth expert for the total target of the target layer is obtained, which satisfies:

[0128]

[0129] Similarly, the weights of the third-level indicators of the solution layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation on the corresponding second-level indicators of the criterion layer also satisfy the above relationship, that is, for the judgment matrix B 1 (k) , B 2 (k) , B 3 (k) and B 4 (k) , according to the judgment matrix B 1 (k) , B 2 (k) , B 3 (k) and B 4 (k) , the weights of the indicators at the solution level obtained by the kth expert evaluation for the corresponding targets at the criterion level satisfy:

[0130]

[0131] It can be seen that the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the k-th expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer satisfies:

[0132]

[0133] In the formula, It represents the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the k-th expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer, It represents the corresponding elements in the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation.

[0134] Combining the evaluation results of s experts, we can get the weight ω of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator in the previous layer. i T satisfy:

[0135]

[0136] In the formula, p (k) Represents the weight of the evaluation result of the kth expert.

[0137] In operation S530, a consistency check is performed on the judgment matrices of each level.

[0138] In operation S540, it is determined whether the consistency check of the judgment matrix of each level passes. If the judgment matrix passes the consistency check, operation S551 is performed, otherwise, operation S552 is performed.

[0139] Whether the weights of indicators at each level calculated according to the above method can be used as the weights of different indicators needs to be determined through consistency test. For each judgment matrix, if the consistency test of the judgment matrix passes, it means that the results calculated according to the judgment matrix can be used as the weights of each indicator, otherwise, the results calculated according to the judgment matrix are excluded.

[0140] Specifically, the consistency test is performed on the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator obtained by the k-th expert evaluation with the i-th indicator of the previous layer, where the consistency indicator formula satisfies:

[0141]

[0142] To measure CI (k) The size of the average random consistency index RI is introduced, and CI (k) Compare with RI to get the consistency ratio CR (k) , which satisfies:

[0143]

[0144] In the formula, It represents the maximum characteristic root of the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation, n (k) is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix The eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenvector of (k)is the consistency ratio value, and RI is the average random consistency index value.

[0145] In this embodiment, CR (k) To determine whether the judgment matrix at each level passes the consistency test. Specifically, if CR (k) <0.1, it means that the inconsistency of the judgment matrix is ​​acceptable, the consistency test of the judgment matrix passes, and the calculated results can be used as the weights of each indicator. The next step is to perform operation S551. (k) ≥0.1, it means that the inconsistency of the judgment matrix is ​​unacceptable, the consistency check fails, and the evaluation result of the expert needs to be excluded. The next step is to perform operation S552.

[0146] Thus, the weight p of the evaluation result of the kth expert can be determined (k) The following relations are satisfied:

[0147]

[0148] In operation S551, the calculated weights of the indicators at each level can serve as weights of different indicators.

[0149] In operation S552, the judgment matrix is ​​excluded.

[0150] Figure 5B A flow chart of a method for calculating weights of indicators at each level based on a judgment matrix according to another embodiment of the present disclosure is shown.

[0151] like Figure 5B As shown in FIG. 1 , the method for calculating the weights of indicators at each level according to the judgment matrix includes operations S510 to S550. Among them, operations S510 to S530 and S550 are respectively Figure 5A Operations S510 to S530 and S551 in the embodiment are implemented in the same manner, and the repeated parts will not be described in detail.

[0152] In operation S540, when the consistency check of the judgment matrix fails, the judgment matrix needs to be readjusted until the constructed judgment matrix reaches satisfactory consistency. That is, in this embodiment, the weight of each indicator in the solution layer in the target layer is finally quantitatively analyzed based on the effective evaluation results of s experts (all passing the consistency check). The above method can more comprehensively evaluate the importance of each indicator in the solution layer to the target layer.

[0153] In operation S423, the weights of the adjacent upper and lower levels are multiplied to obtain the weights of the three-level indicators in the target layer.

[0154] In this embodiment, it is assumed that the secondary indicators (i.e., progress B) in the criterion layer calculated by the hierarchical analysis method are 1Cost B 2 、Quality B 3 and Efficacy B 4 ) in the target layer are ω 1 ,ω 2 ,ω 3 and ω 4 , and the three-level indicators that affect the progress in the plan layer, namely the plan execution deviation rate C 11 , Schedule Performance Index C 12 、Schedule deviation C 13 and project plan detail C 14 The corresponding weights are ω 11 ,ω 12 ,ω 13 and ω 14 . According to ω 11 ,ω 12 ,ω 13 and ω 14 And ω 1 ,ω 2 ,ω 3 and ω 4 The weight of each third-level indicator in the plan layer in the target layer can be calculated, that is, the plan execution deviation rate C 11 , Schedule Performance Index C 12 、Schedule deviation C 13 and project plan detail C 14 The weights of each in the target layer are ω 1 ×ω 11 ,ω 1 ×ω 12 ,ω 1 ×ω 13 ,ω 1 ×ω 14 .

[0155] Similarly, the weights of other three-level indicators in the target layer can be calculated by the above method. Therefore, the weights of each indicator in the solution layer in the target layer can be obtained according to the hierarchical analysis method, so as to quantitatively analyze the importance of each three-level indicator for evaluating the overall goal.

[0156] In operation S430, the weights of the various indicators are modified in combination with the second preset condition, and an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model is established according to the modified weights and evaluation indicators.

[0157] In operation S440, an evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project is calculated using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model.

[0158] Based on the above Scrum agile software project evaluation method, the present disclosure also provides a Scrum agile software project evaluation device. Figure 6 and Figure 7 The device is described in detail.

[0159] Figure 6 A block diagram of a Scrum agile software project assessment device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown.

[0160] like Figure 6 As shown, the Scrum agile software project evaluation device 600 in the embodiment of the present disclosure includes: a construction module 610, a calculation module 620, a correction module 630 and an evaluation module 640. Among them:

[0161] The construction module 610 is used to select an evaluation indicator based on the first preset condition and establish a Scrum agile software project evaluation model accordingly.

[0162] The calculation module 620 is used to calculate the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model by using the hierarchical analysis method.

[0163] The correction module 630 is used to correct the weights of various indicators in combination with the second preset condition, and establish an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model according to the corrected weights and evaluation indicators.

[0164] The evaluation module 640 is used to calculate the evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project by using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model.

[0165] In some embodiments, the construction module 610 is further used to select evaluation indicators based on the analysis of factors affecting the Scrum agile software project and the principle of selecting indicators, and to establish a Scrum agile software project evaluation model accordingly. The principle of selecting indicators may include, for example, the scope indicator selection principle, the cost indicator selection principle, the quality indicator selection principle, and the time indicator selection principle.

[0166] In the implementation of the present disclosure, based on the above-mentioned principle of selecting indicators, evaluation indicators can be selected as initial indicators from the project management evaluation model based on earned value analysis, and then the factors affecting the evaluation of Scrum agile software projects are analyzed through expert interviews, project data and implementation environment analysis, so as to screen and adjust the above-mentioned preliminary indicators, thereby preliminarily obtaining evaluation indicators suitable for Scrum agile software projects, and establishing a Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the evaluation indicators. Subsequently, the hierarchical analysis method is used to quantitatively analyze the importance of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model to the overall evaluation goal, so as to further adjust and screen each indicator in the evaluation model.

[0167] In the disclosed embodiment, the above-mentioned Scrum agile software project evaluation model includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a solution layer. Among them, the target layer is the Scrum agile software project evaluation; in the criterion layer, the secondary indicators affecting the Scrum agile software project evaluation include progress, cost, quality and efficiency; in the solution layer, the third-level indicators affecting the progress include: plan execution deviation rate, progress performance index, progress deviation and project plan detail; the third-level indicators affecting the cost include: resource flow rate, resource utilization rate, resource load rate, cost performance index and cost deviation; the third-level indicators affecting the quality include: thousand lines of code defect rate, acceptance pass rate, production environment defect response time, test environment defect response time, severe level defect density and test environment defect convergence trend; the third-level indicators affecting the efficiency include: man-day code volume, per capita production capacity, user story flow rate and parallel demand throughput.

[0168] In some embodiments, the correction module 630 is also used to correct the weights of various indicators according to the characteristics of the Scrum agile software project and in combination with expert experience, so that the corrected indicators and their weights are more suitable for the needs of Scrum agile software project evaluation.

[0169] Figure 7 A block diagram of a Scrum agile software project assessment device according to another embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown.

[0170] like Figure 7 As shown, the Scrum agile software project evaluation device 700 in the embodiment of the present disclosure includes: a construction module 710, a calculation module 720, a correction module 730 and an evaluation module 740. The calculation module 720 includes a first calculation unit 721, a second calculation unit 722 and a third calculation unit 723.

[0171] In the embodiment of the present disclosure, the construction module 710 is used to select evaluation indicators based on preset conditions and establish a Scrum agile software project evaluation model accordingly.

[0172] The first calculation unit 721 is used to construct judgment matrices at various levels according to the Scrum agile software project evaluation model and the expert scoring method.

[0173] The second calculation unit 722 is used to calculate the weight of the index at each level according to the judgment matrix at each level, and perform a consistency check on the judgment matrix at each level. If the consistency check passes, the weight of the index at each level is obtained.

[0174] The third calculation unit 723 is used to obtain the weight of each third-level indicator in the target layer by multiplying the weights between adjacent upper and lower levels.

[0175] The correction module 730 is used to correct the weight of each indicator in combination with the characteristics of the Scrum model, and establish an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the corrected weight coefficients and evaluation indicators.

[0176] The evaluation module 740 is used to calculate the evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project by using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model.

[0177] In the embodiment of the present disclosure, the above judgment matrix satisfies:

[0178] A=(a ij ) n×n

[0179] Among them, a ij Indicates the importance of indicator i compared with indicator j. According to Saaty's 1-9 scaling method, the judgment matrix is ​​constructed. In adjacent levels, the related lower-level indicators are compared pairwise. ij =1 means that indicator i and indicator j are equally important, a ij =3 means that indicator i is slightly more important than indicator j, a ij =5 means that indicator i is significantly more important than indicator j. ij =7 means that indicator i is more important than indicator j, a ij =9 means that indicator i is absolutely more important than indicator j, a ij =2m (m=1, 2, 3, 4) means that the importance of index i compared with index j is between the above two adjacent scales.

[0180] In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the second calculation unit 722 is also used to calculate the weights of indicators at each level using the geometric mean method; and to perform a consistency check on the judgment matrix at each level. If the judgment matrix passes the consistency check, it means that the calculated weights of indicators at each level can serve as weights of different indicators.

[0181] Specifically, in the embodiment of the present disclosure, it is assumed that s experts are invited to give scores, and the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the kth expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer satisfies:

[0182]

[0183] In the formula, It represents the weight of the current layer indicator obtained by the k-th expert evaluation for the i-th indicator of the previous layer, It represents the corresponding elements in the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation.

[0184] Combining the evaluation results of s experts, we can get the weight ω of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator in the previous layer.i T satisfy:

[0185]

[0186] Among them, the weight of the evaluation result of the kth expert is p (k) The following relations are satisfied:

[0187]

[0188] The consistency test is performed on the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator obtained by the k-th expert evaluation with the i-th indicator of the previous layer, where the consistency indicator formula satisfies:

[0189]

[0190] CI (k) Satisfies the following relationship:

[0191]

[0192] In the formula, is the maximum characteristic root of the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation, n (k) is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix The eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenvector of (k) is the consistency ratio value, and RI is the average random consistency index value.

[0193] It should be noted that the implementation methods, technical problems solved, functions realized, and technical effects achieved of each module / unit / sub-unit in the device part embodiment are the same or similar to the implementation methods, technical problems solved, functions realized, and technical effects achieved of each corresponding step in the method part embodiment, and will not be repeated here.

[0194] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, any multiple modules of the construction module 610, the calculation module 620, the correction module 630 and the evaluation module 640 can be combined in one module for implementation, or any one of the modules can be split into multiple modules. Alternatively, at least part of the functions of one or more of these modules can be combined with at least part of the functions of other modules and implemented in one module. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, at least one of the construction module 610, the calculation module 620, the correction module 630 and the evaluation module 640 can be at least partially implemented as a hardware circuit, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a programmable logic array (PLA), a system on a chip, a system on a substrate, a system on a package, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or can be implemented by hardware or firmware such as any other reasonable way of integrating or packaging the circuit, or implemented in any one of the three implementation methods of software, hardware and firmware or in any appropriate combination of any of them. Alternatively, at least one of the construction module 610, the calculation module 620, the correction module 630 and the evaluation module 640 can be at least partially implemented as a computer program module, and when the computer program module is run, the corresponding function can be executed.

[0195] Figure 8 A block diagram of an electronic device suitable for implementing the Scrum agile software project assessment method according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is schematically shown.

[0196] like Figure 8 As shown, the electronic device 800 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a processor 801, which can perform various appropriate actions and processes according to a program stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 802 or a program loaded from a storage part 808 to a random access memory (RAM) 803. The processor 801 may include, for example, a general-purpose microprocessor (e.g., a CPU), an instruction set processor and / or a related chipset and / or a special-purpose microprocessor (e.g., an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)), etc. The processor 801 may also include an onboard memory for caching purposes. The processor 801 may include a single processing unit or multiple processing units for performing different actions of the method flow according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.

[0197] In RAM803, various programs and data required for the operation of electronic device 800 are stored. Processor 801, ROM802 and RAM 803 are connected to each other via bus 804. Processor 801 performs various operations of the method flow according to the embodiment of the present disclosure by executing the program in ROM 802 and / or RAM 803. It should be noted that the program can also be stored in one or more memories other than ROM 802 and RAM 803. Processor 801 can also perform various operations of the method flow according to the embodiment of the present disclosure by executing the program stored in the one or more memories.

[0198] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the electronic device 800 may further include an input / output (I / O) interface 805, which is also connected to the bus 804. The electronic device 800 may further include one or more of the following components connected to the I / O interface 805: an input portion 806 including a keyboard, a mouse, etc.; an output portion 807 including a cathode ray tube (CRT), a liquid crystal display (LCD), etc., and a speaker, etc.; a storage portion 808 including a hard disk, etc.; and a communication portion 809 including a network interface card such as a LAN card, a modem, etc. The communication portion 809 performs communication processing via a network such as the Internet. A drive 810 is also connected to the I / O interface 805 as needed. A removable medium 811, such as a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a magneto-optical disk, a semiconductor memory, etc., is installed on the drive 810 as needed, so that a computer program read therefrom is installed into the storage portion 808 as needed.

[0199] The present disclosure also provides a computer-readable storage medium, which may be included in the device / apparatus / system described in the above embodiments; or may exist independently without being assembled into the device / apparatus / system. The above computer-readable storage medium carries one or more programs, and when the above one or more programs are executed, the method according to the embodiment of the present disclosure is implemented.

[0200] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the computer-readable storage medium may be a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium, for example, may include but is not limited to: a portable computer disk, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), a portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination thereof. In the present disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium containing or storing a program, which may be used by or in combination with an instruction execution system, an apparatus or a device. For example, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium may include the ROM 802 and / or RAM 803 described above and / or one or more memories other than ROM 802 and RAM 803.

[0201] The embodiment of the present disclosure also includes a computer program product, which includes a computer program, and the computer program contains program code for executing the method shown in the flowchart. When the computer program product is run in a computer system, the program code is used to enable the computer system to implement the Scrum agile software project evaluation method provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure.

[0202] The above functions defined in the system / device of the embodiment of the present disclosure are executed when the computer program is executed by the processor 801. According to the embodiment of the present disclosure, the system, device, module, unit, etc. described above can be implemented by a computer program module.

[0203] In one embodiment, the computer program may rely on tangible storage media such as optical storage devices, magnetic storage devices, etc. In another embodiment, the computer program may also be transmitted and distributed in the form of signals on a network medium, and downloaded and installed through the communication part 809, and / or installed from a removable medium 811. The program code contained in the computer program may be transmitted using any appropriate network medium, including but not limited to: wireless, wired, etc., or any suitable combination of the above.

[0204] In such an embodiment, the computer program can be downloaded and installed from the network through the communication part 809, and / or installed from the removable medium 811. When the computer program is executed by the processor 801, the above functions defined in the system of the embodiment of the present disclosure are performed. According to the embodiment of the present disclosure, the system, device, means, module, unit, etc. described above can be implemented by a computer program module.

[0205] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the program code for executing the computer program provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure can be written in any combination of one or more programming languages. Specifically, these computing programs can be implemented using high-level process and / or object-oriented programming languages, and / or assembly / machine languages. Programming languages ​​include, but are not limited to, Java, C++, python, "C" language or similar programming languages. The program code can be executed entirely on the user computing device, partially on the user device, partially on the remote computing device, or entirely on the remote computing device or server. In the case of a remote computing device, the remote computing device can be connected to the user computing device through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or can be connected to an external computing device (for example, using an Internet service provider to connect through the Internet).

[0206] The flow charts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the possible architecture, functions and operations of the systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present disclosure. In this regard, each box in the flow chart or block diagram can represent a module, a program segment, or a part of a code, and the above-mentioned module, program segment, or a part of a code contains one or more executable instructions for realizing the specified logical function. It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions marked in the box can also occur in a different order from the order marked in the accompanying drawings. For example, two boxes represented in succession can actually be executed substantially in parallel, and they can sometimes be executed in the opposite order, depending on the functions involved. It should also be noted that each box in the block diagram or flow chart, and the combination of the boxes in the block diagram or flow chart can be implemented with a dedicated hardware-based system that performs a specified function or operation, or can be implemented with a combination of dedicated hardware and computer instructions.

[0207] It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the features described in the various embodiments and / or claims of the present disclosure may be combined and / or combined in a variety of ways, even if such combinations and / or combinations are not explicitly described in the present disclosure. In particular, the features described in the various embodiments and / or claims of the present disclosure may be combined and / or combined in a variety of ways without departing from the spirit and teachings of the present disclosure. All of these combinations and / or combinations fall within the scope of the present disclosure.

[0208] The embodiments of the present disclosure are described above. However, these embodiments are only for illustrative purposes and are not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure. Although the embodiments are described above separately, this does not mean that the measures in the various embodiments cannot be used in combination to advantage. The scope of the present disclosure is defined by the attached claims and their equivalents. Without departing from the scope of the present disclosure, those skilled in the art may make a variety of substitutions and modifications, which should all fall within the scope of the present disclosure.

Claims

1. A Scrum agile software project evaluation method, comprising: Select evaluation indicators based on the first preset condition, and establish a Scrum agile software project evaluation model based on the evaluation indicators; The weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model is calculated using the analytic hierarchy process; The weights of the various indicators are modified in combination with the second preset condition, and an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model is established based on the modified weights and evaluation indicators; and The optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model is used to calculate the evaluation result of the Scrum agile software project; The Scrum agile software project evaluation model includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a solution layer; the target layer is the Scrum agile software project evaluation; in the criterion layer, the secondary indicators affecting the Scrum agile software project evaluation include progress, cost, quality and efficiency; in the solution layer, the tertiary indicators affecting the progress include: plan execution deviation rate, progress performance index, progress deviation and project plan detail; the tertiary indicators affecting the cost include: resource flow rate, resource utilization rate, resource load rate, cost performance index and cost deviation; the tertiary indicators affecting the quality include: defect rate per thousand lines of code, acceptance pass rate, production environment defect response time, test environment defect response time, severe level defect density and test environment defect convergence trend; the tertiary indicators affecting the efficiency include: per capita code volume, per capita production capacity, user story flow rate and parallel demand throughput; The method of using the analytic hierarchy process to calculate the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model includes: constructing a judgment matrix at each level according to the Scrum agile software project evaluation model and the expert scoring method; calculating the weight of the indicator at each level according to the judgment matrix at each level, and performing a consistency test on the judgment matrix at each level, and obtaining the weight of the indicator at each level if the consistency test passes; and obtaining the weight of each third-level indicator in the target layer by multiplying the weights between adjacent upper and lower levels; S experts are invited to give scores, and the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the kth expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer satisfies: In the formula, It represents the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the k-th expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer, Represents the corresponding elements in the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation; Combining the evaluation results of s experts, we can get the weight of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator in the previous layer. satisfy: Among them, the weight of the evaluation result of the kth expert, T is the transposed symbol, The following relations are satisfied: The consistency test is performed on the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator obtained by the k-th expert evaluation with the i-th indicator of the previous layer, where the consistency indicator formula satisfies: Satisfies the following relationship: In the formula, is the maximum characteristic root of the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation, is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix The eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenvector of is the consistency ratio value, and RI is the average random consistency index value.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein: The judgment matrix satisfies: Among them, a ij Indicates the importance of indicator i compared with indicator j. According to Saaty's 1-9 scaling method, the judgment matrix is ​​constructed. In adjacent levels, the related lower-level indicators are compared pairwise. ij =1 means that indicator i and indicator j are equally important, a ij =3 means that indicator i is slightly more important than indicator j, a ij =5 means that indicator i is significantly more important than indicator j. ij =7 means that indicator i is more important than indicator j, a ij =9 means that indicator i is absolutely more important than indicator j, a ij =2m(m=1, 2, 3, 4) means that compared with index i, the importance of index j is between index i and index j.

3. The method according to claim 2, wherein: The weights of the indicators at each level are calculated according to the judgment matrices at each level, and the judgment matrices at each level are subjected to consistency checks. If the consistency checks are passed, the weights of the indicators at each level are obtained, including: The geometric mean method is used to calculate the weights of indicators at each level; The judgment matrix of each level is tested for consistency. If the judgment matrix passes the consistency test, it means that the calculated weights of the indicators at each level can serve as the weights of different indicators.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein: The selecting of the evaluation indicator based on the first preset condition comprises: Evaluation indicators are selected based on the analysis of factors affecting Scrum agile software projects and the principles for selecting indicators; wherein the principles for selecting indicators include scope indicator selection principles, cost indicator selection principles, quality indicator selection principles and time indicator selection principles.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein: The step of modifying the weight of each indicator in combination with the second preset condition includes: According to the characteristics of Scrum agile software projects, the weights of various indicators are modified in combination with expert experience.

6. A Scrum agile software project evaluation device, comprising: A construction module is used to select an evaluation indicator based on the first preset condition and establish a Scrum agile software project evaluation model accordingly; A calculation module, used for calculating the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model by using the analytic hierarchy process; A correction module, used to correct the weight of each indicator in combination with the second preset condition, and establish an optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model according to the corrected weight and evaluation indicator; as well as An evaluation module, used to calculate an evaluation result of a Scrum agile software project using the optimized Scrum agile software project evaluation model; The Scrum agile software project evaluation model includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a solution layer; the target layer is the Scrum agile software project evaluation; in the criterion layer, the secondary indicators affecting the Scrum agile software project evaluation include progress, cost, quality and efficiency; in the solution layer, the tertiary indicators affecting the progress include: plan execution deviation rate, progress performance index, progress deviation and project plan detail; the tertiary indicators affecting the cost include: resource flow rate, resource utilization rate, resource load rate, cost performance index and cost deviation; the tertiary indicators affecting the quality include: defect rate per thousand lines of code, acceptance pass rate, production environment defect response time, test environment defect response time, severe level defect density and test environment defect convergence trend; the tertiary indicators affecting the efficiency include: per capita code volume, per capita production capacity, user story flow rate and parallel demand throughput; The method of using the analytic hierarchy process to calculate the weight of each indicator in the Scrum agile software project evaluation model includes: constructing a judgment matrix at each level according to the Scrum agile software project evaluation model and the expert scoring method; calculating the weight of the indicator at each level according to the judgment matrix at each level, and performing a consistency test on the judgment matrix at each level, and obtaining the weight of the indicator at each level if the consistency test passes; and obtaining the weight of each third-level indicator in the target layer by multiplying the weights between adjacent upper and lower levels; S experts are invited to give scores, and the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the kth expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer satisfies: In the formula, It represents the weight of the current layer indicator evaluated by the k-th expert for the i-th indicator of the previous layer, Represents the corresponding elements in the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation; Combining the evaluation results of s experts, we can get the weight of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator in the previous layer. satisfy: Among them, the weight of the evaluation result of the kth expert, T is the transposed symbol, The following relations are satisfied: The consistency test is performed on the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator obtained by the k-th expert evaluation with the i-th indicator of the previous layer, where the consistency indicator formula satisfies: Satisfies the following relationship: In the formula, is the maximum characteristic root of the judgment matrix of the current layer indicator for the i-th indicator of the previous layer obtained by the k-th expert evaluation, is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix The eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenvector of is the consistency ratio value, and RI is the average random consistency index value.

7. An electronic device comprising: one or more processors; a memory for storing one or more programs, When the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors execute the method according to any one of claims 1 to 5.

8. A computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to execute the method according to any one of claims 1 to 5.

9. A computer program product, comprising a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method according to any one of claims 1 to 5 is implemented.

Images