Institute of Information Technology
University of Dhaka
Topic: Goal Question Metrics(GQM)
Course: Software Metrics (SE-611)
Title: To assess the impact of the SRS course on IIT
graduates working as software developers in
Bangladeshi software companies
Submitted by:
Md. Shakibul Islam Shakib - 1404
Md. Nowsad Hossen Munna - 1407
Md. Kibria Hossen Roni - 1430
Submitted to:
Dr. Emon Kumar Dey
Associate Professor
Institute of Information Technology
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 3
Definition and Application of GQM Paradigm.....................................................................3
2. Project Specification..........................................................................................................4
2.1 Project Overview.......................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Motivation..................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Scope........................................................................................................................... 5
3. Goal Specification.............................................................................................................. 5
3.1 PPE Goal Framework...................................................................................................5
3.2 Subgoals and Questions.............................................................................................. 6
4. Questionnaire Preparation and Data Collection............................................................. 8
5. Data Visualization...............................................................................................................8
6. Metrics Analysis...............................................................................................................14
Q3: How relevant was the SRS course content to your current job responsibilities?......14
Q4: How often do you apply concepts from the SRS course in your job?........................15
Q5:In your current company, how is software requirement documentation usually
handled?...........................................................................................................................16
Q6:How often do you face misunderstandings due to unclear or missing requirements?...
17
Q7:Do you think proper use of formal SRS documentation could reduce
misunderstandings and rework in your company?........................................................... 18
Q9:Did the SRS course improve your ability to write or analyze software requirements?...
19
H₀: Confidence levels among participants are evenly distributed (no significant difference
between "Yes," "Maybe," and "No").
H₁: Confidence levels among participants are significantly different (one or more
categories dominate)........................................................................................................19
Q10:How confident are you in handling requirement documents after completing the
course?.............................................................................................................................20
Q11:Compared to your peers who didn’t take the SRS course, how do you rate your
performance in requirement-related tasks?
H₀: : Participants rate themselves the same as peers.
H₁:Participants rate themselves differently (better or worse)............................................22
Q12:Do you believe the SRS course gave you a competitive advantage in interviews or
job performance?............................................................................................................. 23
H₀: Beliefs are evenly distributed.
H₁: A dominant belief (e.g., "Yes") exists.......................................................................... 23
Q13:Overall, how satisfied are you with the value the SRS course added to your career?.
23
7. Result of Analysis............................................................................................................ 25
8. Conclusion........................................................................................................................26
9. References........................................................................................................................26
3
1. Introduction
The Software Requirements Specification (SRS) course offered at IIT is intended to prepare
students for real-world requirement engineering tasks. However, in the context of the
Bangladeshi software industry, formal requirement documentation is often lacking or
informally handled. Many companies still rely on verbal communication or brief informal
notes, which can lead to ambiguities, misunderstandings, and mismatches between client
expectations and developer deliverables. This is particularly problematic in growing teams or
long-term projects where clarity and consistency are crucial.
This study aims to evaluate how well the SRS course equips IIT graduates to deal with such
challenges in their current job roles as software developers. Using the Goal-Question-Metric
(GQM) paradigm, we collect structured feedback to understand how relevant and impactful
the course has been in addressing real-world software requirement issues in the
Bangladeshi context.
Definition and Application of GQM Paradigm
The Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) paradigm is a systematic and structured approach used in
software engineering to define and measure goals to improve software quality and project
outcomes. Developed by Victor Basili, GQM helps translate abstract goals into concrete,
measurable data that can be analyzed to support decision-making and process
improvement.
GQM operates in three hierarchical levels:
● Goal (Conceptual Level): This step involves clearly defining what the organization
or study aims to achieve. A goal specifies the object of measurement, the purpose of
the measurement, the viewpoint, and the context. It provides a clear, focused target
for assessment.
● Question (Operational Level): Once the goal is established, specific questions are
formulated to assess whether the goal is being met. These questions break down the
goal into measurable aspects that can be explored through data collection.
● Metric (Quantitative Level): For each question, appropriate metrics or data points
are identified. Metrics can be quantitative (e.g., counts, percentages, frequencies) or
qualitative (e.g., Likert scale responses) and serve as evidence to answer the
questions effectively.
Application in This Study:
In this report, the GQM paradigm is employed to systematically evaluate the impact of the
Software Requirements Specification (SRS) course on IIT graduates working in the
Bangladeshi software industry. Using the PPE (Purpose, Perspective, Environment)
framework, we defined a specific goal aligned with the real-world environment of graduates.
We then formulated targeted questions addressing key aspects such as course relevance,
application of concepts, documentation practices, skill development, and perceived career
4
benefits. Finally, measurable metrics were identified to collect structured feedback through
surveys, allowing for rigorous data analysis and meaningful conclusions about the course’s
effectiveness.
2. Project Specification
2.1 Project Overview
This study was designed to investigate the relevance and effectiveness of the Software
Requirements Specification (SRS) course taught at IIT. Specifically, it evaluates how well the
course has prepared graduates for real-world scenarios in software companies across
Bangladesh. The core objective was to gather insights from graduates currently working in
roles related to software development and analyze how the concepts taught in the course
are applied in environments where formal SRS documentation is often absent.
The study employs a survey-based approach to gather direct feedback. The responses were
then analyzed through the Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) methodology to ensure systematic
interpretation and traceability from the high-level goal to quantifiable conclusions.
2.2 Motivation
In Bangladesh, the software industry is growing rapidly, but many companies still operate in
a semi-structured or informal manner when it comes to software requirement practices.
Often, requirements are communicated verbally or through brief discussions on messaging
platforms, leading to frequent misunderstandings and project inefficiencies. These
shortcomings create critical challenges for software developers who are expected to deliver
high-quality software under tight deadlines.
The motivation behind this study stems from the gap between academic training and
real-world practices. While the SRS course covers comprehensive methodologies and best
practices for handling software requirements, we sought to understand whether this
theoretical knowledge holds practical value in the unique context of Bangladeshi software
companies. This investigation could help guide improvements in both academic curricula
and industry practices.
5
2.3 Scope
The scope of the study is limited to IIT graduates who have completed the SRS course and
are now working as software developers or in related roles across Bangladeshi software
firms. The survey was designed to be simple and precise, focusing only on core issues such
as documentation practices, communication challenges, perceived benefits from the course,
and self-assessed performance improvements. This focused scope allows for a more
in-depth analysis of the specific impact the SRS course has had in environments that
typically lack formal processes.
3. Goal Specification
3.1 PPE Goal Framework
The PPE framework—short for Purpose, Perspective, and Environment—is a foundational
element in defining meaningful goals in the Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) paradigm. It helps
frame the context in which the goal operates and ensures that the objectives are both
realistic and relevant.
● Purpose: The purpose describes the reason or motivation behind performing the
measurement activity. In this study, the purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of the
SRS course offered at IIT. This includes assessing how well the course has prepared
students to apply requirement engineering concepts in real-world jobs and whether it
bridges the gap between academic theory and industry practice.
● Perspective: This defines whose viewpoint is being considered. For our goal, the
perspective is from the graduates of IIT who have taken the SRS course and are now
working as software developers in various Bangladeshi software companies. Their
feedback and experiences provide an authentic lens to judge the course's practical
relevance and utility.
● Environment: This refers to the actual setting or conditions in which the
measurement takes place. The environment in this case is the Bangladeshi software
industry—where formal requirement practices are often absent or loosely followed.
Many companies do not emphasize detailed documentation, creating a unique
challenge for those who have academic training in structured requirement
engineering.
By clearly identifying these three aspects, our goal becomes specific and measurable.
Final Goal Statement: To assess the impact of the SRS course on IIT graduates, from the
viewpoint of software developers working in software companies.
6
3.2 Subgoals and Questions
Subgoal Question Metrics Scale
Relevance & How relevant was the SRS Weighted 5-point Likert
Application course to your job? relevance score scale
High Relevance
Rate
How often do you apply SRS Application Verbal frequency
concepts? Frequency scale
Distribution(count
)
Weighted
Frequency Score
Documentation How are requirements Documentation Categorical
Practices documented? Practice options
Distribution(count
)
Frequency of Weighted Verbal frequency
misunderstandings? Misunderstanding scale
Score
High
Misunderstanding
Rate
7
Can SRS reduce Positive Yes/No/Maybe
misunderstandings? Perception Rate
Weighted
Misunderstanding
Score
Perception
Distribution
Skill Development Did the course improve your Skill Improvement Yes/No
skills? Distribution(count
)
Confidence in handling Weighted 5-point Likert
documents? Confidence Score scale
Performance Performance vs peers? Weighted 5-point
Comparison Performance comparison scale
Score
Positive
Performance
Rate
Advantage
Distribution(count
)
Competitive advantage of Competitive Yes/No/Maybe
course? Advantage
Distribution(count
)
Satisfaction Overall satisfaction with course Weighted 5-point Likert
impact Satisfaction scale
Score
Positive
Satisfaction Rate
8
4. Questionnaire Preparation and Data Collection
The questionnaire was created using Google Forms and distributed among IIT alumni
currently working in software roles. Questions were divided into five sections: Background,
Relevance & Application, Skill Development, Comparison, and Feedback.
A total of 17 responses were collected over 7 days.
5. Data Visualization
Fig-01: Job title/role distribution
9
Fig-02: Company type distribution
Fig-03: SRS relevance compare to Job responsibility distribution
10
Fig-04: Frequency distribution of applying SRS concepts
Fig-05: Formality distribution of SRS documentation
Fig-06: Misunderstanding distribution for missing requirements
11
Fig-07: Distribution of thinking of reducing misunderstanding for SRS
Fig-08: Distribution of SRS topic developers work on
12
Fig-09: Distribution of Improvement of requirements analysis for SRS
Fig-10: Confidence distribution of requirements handling
13
Fig-11: Comparison with developers with no SRS knowledge
Fig-12: Competence distribution for SRS
14
Fig-13: Satisfaction distribution for adding SRS course
6. Metrics Analysis
Q3: How relevant was the SRS course content to your current
job responsibilities?
Metric:Weighted relevance score
T-test
H0: average relevant(μ=3)
H1: more than average relevant(μ>3)
Count 17
Sum 59
Mean (Average) 3.4705882352941
Median 4
Mode 4, appeared 7 times
Largest 5
Smallest 2
Range 3
Geometric Mean 3.3388087399729
Standard Deviation 0.91507936388847
Variance 0.83737024221453
15
Sample Standard Deviation 0.9432422182838
Sample Variance 0.88970588235294
t-value = 2.117879392
p = 0.05, one tailed
Degree of freedom = 17-1 = 16
T-critical = 1.746
t-value>t-critical
So, H0 is rejected
Conclusion: SRS course has above-average relevance to current jobs for most of the IIT
graduates working as software developers.
Q4: How often do you apply concepts from the SRS course in
your job?
H0:Participants use SRS at the same level of frequency (low, medium, high).
H1: Some frequency levels are used more than others.
Metric:Application Frequency Distribution(count)
Group Categories Included Observed
Low Rarely 1
Medium Sometimes 7
16
High Often + Always 7+2=9
Assuming equal distribution (no preference), expected frequency for each group = Total / 3
=17 / 3 ≈ 5.67
df=number of groups−1=3−1=2
Observed Expected
Low Group 1 5.67
Medium Group 7 5.67
High Group 9 5.67
X² 6.12
P-value 0.0467
d.f 2
P < 0.05, NULL Rejected
conclusion: Participants do not use SRS equally across frequency levels — it is used
significantly more at higher levels (often or always), while very few report using it rarely. This
indicates a tendency toward more frequent SRS usage among participants.
Q5:In your current company, how is software requirement
documentation usually handled?
H₀: All usage frequencies are equally common.
H₁: Some frequencies are more common than others.
Metric:Documentation Practice Distribution(count)
Group Name Categories Included Count
Formal Formal SRS documents are always created 5
17
Informal A short, unofficial document or email is used 7
Unstructured No clear doc + Only verbal/chat-based 3+2=5
Total responses = 17
Equal expected frequency per group = 17 / 3 = 5.67
Observed Expected
Formal Group 5 5.67
Informal Group 7 5.67
Unstructured Group 5 5.67
X² 0.4679
P value 0.791
d.f 2
P > 0.05, NULL accepted
Conclusion:Participants use formal, informal, and unstructured SRS documentation styles at
relatively similar rates. There is no strong preference for any particular style of
documentation among the groups.
Q6:How often do you face misunderstandings due to unclear or missing
requirements?
T-test
H0: sometimes misunderstanding happens due to unclear requirements(μ=3)
H1: Most of the time misunderstanding happens due to unclear requirements(μ>3)
Metrics: Weighted score
Count 17
Sum 67
18
Mean (Average) 3.9411764705882
Median 4
Mode 4, appeared 8 times
Largest 5
Smallest 3
Range 2
Geometric Mean 3.8736079202915
Standard Deviation 0.72522517681988
Variance 0.52595155709343
Sample Standard Deviation 0.7475450015964
Sample Variance 0.55882352941176
t-value = 4.97047492
p = 0.05, one tailed
Degree of freedom = 17-1 = 16
T-critical = 1.746
t-value>t-critical
So, H0 is rejected
Conclusion: Most of the time misunderstanding happens because of unclear requirements.
Q7:Do you think proper use of formal SRS documentation could
reduce misunderstandings and rework in your company?
H₀: Opinions are balanced among Yes, Maybe, and No.
H₁: Most participants strongly agree it’s useful.
Metric:Perception Distribution
19
Group Included responses Observed
Yes Yes 15
Maybe Maybe 2
No No 0
Expected=17/3=5.67
Observed Expected
Yes Group 15 5.67
Maybe Group 2 5.67
No Group 0 5.67
X² 23.43
P value < 0.00001
d.f 2
P < 0.05, NULL Rejected
conclusion:The vast majority of participants strongly agree that the SRS course is useful.
The responses are not evenly distributed — almost everyone selected "Yes", confirming a
clear and overwhelming positive perception of the course’s usefulness.
Q9:Did the SRS course improve your ability to write or analyze
software requirements?
H₀: Confidence levels among participants are evenly distributed (no significant difference
between "Yes," "Maybe," and "No").
H₁: Confidence levels among participants are significantly different (one or more categories
dominate).
Metric:Skill Improvement Distribution(count)
20
Group Included Responses Observed (O)
Yes Yes 15
Maybe Maybe 2
No No 0
Expected=17/3=5.67
Observed Expected
Yes Group 15 5.67
Maybe Group 2 5.67
No Group 0 5.67
X² 23.43
P value < 0.00001
d.f 2
P < 0.05, NULL Rejected
Q9 - Confidence After Course
Most participants (70%) reported being "Confident" or "Very Confident" after the course,
indicating a strong, statistically significant increase in confidence levels among participants.
Q10:How confident are you in handling requirement documents after
completing the course?
T-test
H0: not confident about requirements handling(μ=3)
H1: confident about requirements handling(μ>3)
Metric:Weighted Confidence Score
Count 17
Sum 60
21
Mean (Average) 3.5294117647059
Median 3
Mode 3, appeared 9 times
Largest 5
Smallest 3
Range 2
Geometric Mean 3.4802988924135
Standard Deviation 0.605625302411
Variance 0.36678200692042
Sample Standard Deviation 0.6242642728468
Sample Variance 0.38970588235294
t-value = 3.062
p = 0.05, one tailed
Degree of freedom = 17-1 = 16
T-critical = 1.746
t-value>t-critical
So, H0 is rejected
Conclusion: After doing the SRS course they are confident about requirements handling.
22
Q11:Compared to your peers who didn’t take the SRS course, how
do you rate your performance in requirement-related tasks?
H₀: : Participants rate themselves the same as peers.
H₁:Participants rate themselves differently (better or worse).
Metric: Advantage Distribution(count)
Group Included responses Count
Better Slightly Better + Much Better 7 + 4 = 11
Same About the Same 3
Worse Slightly Worse 3
Expected=17/3=5.67
Observed Expected
Better Group 11 5.67
Same Group 3 5.67
Worse Group 3 5.67
X² 7.51
P value 0.0234
d.f 2
P < 0.05, NULL Rejected
conclusion:Most participants believe they perform better than peers who didn’t take the SRS
course. The distribution is not equal — a strong tendency toward self-assessed improvement
is evident.
23
Q12:Do you believe the SRS course gave you a competitive
advantage in interviews or job performance?
H₀: Beliefs are evenly distributed.
H₁: A dominant belief (e.g., "Yes") exists.
Metric:Competitive Advantage Distribution(count)
Group Observed (O)
Yes 12
No 3
Maybe 2
Expected=17/3=5.67
Observed Expected
Yes Group 12 5.67
No Group 3 5.67
Maybe Group 2 5.67
X² 10.68
P value 0.0048
d.f 2
P < 0.05, NULL Rejected
conclusion:A clear majority of participants believe the SRS course added value to their
career. The belief is not evenly distributed — the "Yes" group strongly dominates, showing a
positive perception of its career impact.
Q13:Overall, how satisfied are you with the value the SRS course
added to your career?
T-test
H0: not significantly satisfied(μ<3)
H1: significantly satisfied(μ>=3)
24
Metric:Weighted Satisfaction Score
Count 17
Sum 66
Mean (Average) 3.8823529411765
Median 4
Mode 4, appeared 7 times
Largest 5
Smallest 3
Range 2
Geometric Mean 3.8086084150797
Standard Deviation 0.7578881603956
Variance 0.57439446366782
Sample Standard Deviation 0.78121323442903
Sample Variance 0.61029411764706
t-value = −0.6227
p = 0.05, one tailed
Degree of freedom = 17-1 = 16
T-critical = -1.746
t-value>t-critical
So, H0 is rejected
25
Conclusion: IITians are satisfied with the value the SRS course added to your career.
7. Result of Analysis
The analysis of the survey responses reveals several key insights into the impact of the SRS
course on IIT graduates working as software developers in the Bangladeshi software
industry.
1. Relevance and Application
The SRS course is considered significantly relevant to the participants' current job
roles. Statistical tests show that the perceived relevance of the course is above
average, with most respondents frequently applying SRS concepts in their daily work.
This suggests that the course content aligns well with the practical needs faced by
developers, even in environments where formal documentation is scarce.
2. Documentation Practices and Misunderstandings
Respondents reported using a variety of documentation styles—formal, informal,
and unstructured—at similar rates, reflecting the mixed and evolving nature of
requirement handling in local companies. While formal documentation is not
universally practiced, many participants recognize that implementing structured SRS
practices could help reduce misunderstandings and miscommunications within teams
and with clients.
3. Skill Development and Confidence
There is strong evidence that the SRS course enhances graduates’ skills in
requirement analysis and handling. The majority of participants expressed increased
confidence in managing software requirements after completing the course. This
increased self-assurance is statistically significant and highlights the practical value
of the course in empowering graduates to perform effectively despite industry
challenges.
4. Performance and Competitive Advantage
Most participants rated their performance better than peers who did not take the
SRS course, indicating a competitive edge gained through this academic training.
Additionally, a clear majority believe that the course has positively influenced their
career trajectory, further validating its importance as part of the software engineering
curriculum.
5. Satisfaction and Overall Impact
Overall satisfaction with the SRS course is high, with participants appreciating the
knowledge and skills acquired. The course is perceived as an essential foundation
26
for software requirement engineering, and many recommend incorporating more
practical, real-world case studies and exercises tailored to the Bangladeshi software
industry context.
This analysis underscores the meaningful contribution of the SRS course to bridging the gap
between academic theory and practical software development challenges in Bangladesh,
supporting continuous improvement of curriculum and industry practices.
8. Conclusion
The study conclusively shows that the Software Requirements Specification (SRS) course
offered at IIT has a positive and significant impact on graduates working as software
developers in the Bangladeshi software industry. Despite the prevalent informal and
unstructured approaches to requirement documentation in many local companies, IIT
graduates who completed the course demonstrate higher confidence, better skills, and a
stronger ability to handle software requirements effectively.
The course equips students with valuable knowledge and practices that help bridge the gap
between academic learning and real-world industry challenges. Graduates report frequently
applying SRS principles in their jobs and perceive a competitive advantage over peers
without such training. Moreover, most participants believe that structured requirement
documentation, as taught in the course, can significantly reduce misunderstandings and
improve project outcomes.
To further enhance its relevance, it is recommended that the SRS course incorporate more
industry-specific case studies, practical exercises, and hands-on documentation tasks
tailored to the Bangladeshi software development context. This will better prepare future
graduates to meet the evolving demands of the software industry and contribute to raising
standards in software engineering practices nationally.
9. References
● Google Form link:
Assessing the Impact of the SRS Course on IIT Graduates
● Google Sheet for response data:
Assessing the Impact of the SRS Course on IIT Graduates (Responses)
● Metrics test methods: Z-test, Chi-square
