2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
Evaluating Maintainability of Android Applications
Ahmad A. Saifan
Software Engineering Department
Faculty of IT, Yarmouk University
Irbid, Jordan
ahmads@yu.edu.jo
Abstract—Android applications are considered the most
popular and desirable applications due to their friendly interface,
various categories and available options, and supporting most of
the available hardware in the market. Complexity to understand,
design, develop, implement, and test android applications have
been raised. Maintainability is a very important quality attribute
that we should consider it seriously. However, it is one of the
most difficult and costly attributes that can be achieved. The
software metrics are used to predict and estimate the software
maintainability value. There are several metrics and formulas
that are used to measure and estimate the maintainability value.
These metrics and formulas are derived from the different usages
of the maintainability. This paper focus on analyzing and
measuring the maintainability of Android mobile applications
using Object Oriented metrics and Android Metrics. The
purpose of this paper is to assess the impact all of these metrics
on the maintainability of Android applications and choose the
metrics that has the highest impact.
Keywords—Maintaniabilty; Android application;Regression
analysis; Software metrics
I. INTRODUCTION
During the last years, using smartphones specially that running
Android Operating System (OS) became more popular. Thus,
the development of Android application increased. In 2016,
Google play store reached more than 65 billion application
downloads. In October 2016 [11] the number of applications
on Google play store was over 2.4 million applications, 13%
of them classified as low quality application [12]. Due to sharp
increasing of user requirements, popularity of Android
applications, big competitive challenges between developers
and rapid technology evolution, these have led developers to
develop applications rapidly, which effects the quality of the
produced applications through adopting bad design. Because
of the fast growth and rapid updates that happened frequently
for the android applications, it is important for mobile
software developers to keep their applications maintainable.
Otherwise, if they fail or are unable to keep their applications
maintainable it will be more difficult for them to keep up with
the rapid changes and ensure their applications remain
relevant in the fast changing mobile application market[8].
The maintainability is a characteristic of design and
installation which determines the probability that a failed
equipment, machine, or system can be restored to its normal
978-1-5090-6332-1/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
Areej Al-Rabadi
Computer Science Department
Faculty of IT, Yarmouk University
Irbid, Jordan
areeg.rabadi@yahoo.com
operable state within a given timeframe. Now with the
popularity of the smartphones that is used by different people
in different ages, the popularity of the android operating
system is increased rapidly, so that the maintainability in the
android world is very important; it can decide if the
application can be used for a long time because any
application can fail in the future or the customer's needs can be
changed, so that any application must be repairable and
maintainable to accept any changes that can happen in the
future, in another meaning it can increase the age of the
software and keep it up to date. But there are several of the
problems and constraints that can face any programmer, one
of these constraints the cost, maintainer training, maintenance
manuals, such that it needs an experience developer who
knows how to build a maintainable software, although the
maintainability attribute is very expensive
Some metrics are used to measure and analyze the
maintainability based on a given source code of an Android
application. A set of OO and a set of Android metrics that are
relevant to maintainability are provided in section II. The main
purpose of this paper to see whether the Android metrics have
an impact on the maintainability or not. Then, write a new
formula to analyze the maintainability of Android
applications. This paper is structured as follows: Section II
provides the necessary Related work: it briefly describes the
maintainability in Object Oriented programming languages
and Android operating systems. The detailed methodology
approach is presented in Section III. Section IV conclude the
paper.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Maintainability in Object Oriented programing language
Many literatures compute maintainability based on MI index,
Similar to [13,22] we examine three open source software,
Anita Ganpati examine the maintainability of the four OSS
through a formula based on average Halstead volume, average
cyclomatic complexity per module, average Line of code per
module. Antina prove that maintainability value differs from
one application to another; Mozilla Firefox gains the highest
maintainability value whereas Appache gain the lowest value.
The author conclude that the Mozilla more maintainable than
Apache.
518
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
Nahlah Najm [14] suggest a new equation to calculate the
maintainability index depending on the factored formula
(MI);MI consist of LOC, cyclomatic complexity, halstead
volume, suggested formula resulted from calculation on the
old formula, it is depends on LOC only, which produce results
close to the old MI formula with less effort and time to
calculate. Unlike [15,16] we examine the maintainability
depending on its four sub characteristics formula.
Many research assesses maintainability using various models
and techniques. Similar to [15] we depend on C&K metrics to
assess maintainability. The researchers reviewed OO metrics
to construct a model that predicts OSS maintainability, they
made a comparison between metrics applicable on OSS versus
those applicable to OO and they find many OO metrics
applicable to OSS but few (like LOD and LCN) cannot be
applicable to OSS. They try to find a relationship between
maintainability and coupling, cohesion, complexity. They
found that maintainability has an inverse relationship with
complexity which increase according to increase in
(LOC,WMC,NAM,DIT, CBO, REF, LCOM, CC, EHF,
NCB). Unlike [4] we focus on the main characteristics of
maintainability; Analyzability , Changeability ,Stability, and
Testability.
D. Crabtree et.al [1] defined the maintainability as a
measure that is used to determine how easy it is to maintain a
system after its failure. They talked about the cost of the
maintainability and how prohibitive it is. The maintainability
is one of the software requirements that must be imposed on
any software products. They saw that the cost factor is the
most important one to measure the maintainability because it
reflects features of the software process such as personal
attributes and project attributes size. They used a formula to
estimate the maintainability depending on the cost.
H. Paul Barringer, P.E. Barringer & Associates [2] presented
that maintainability can be measure by the time; the period
needs to maintain (modify ) the code, in another meaning and
how it is easy and how is faster to maintain the code compared
to a datum, the datum means or include all the necessary
actions that required to retain an item in. The maintainability
characteristics can be measured by the time that we need to
maintain the code and by equipment design.
The merit for maintainability considered by the mean time to
repair (MTTP) it means how long the maintainability
functions will take to do the required modification (how fast
the system can be repaired), and a limit for maximum repair
time. Qualitatively refers to how easy it is to restore the
hardware and software to do its functions, it has probabilities
and it is measured based on the total down time for
maintenance like active repair time.
Alisara Hincheeranan and Wanchai Rivepiboon [5], the ease
with which a software system or component can be modified
to correct faults, improve performance or other attributes, or
adapt to a changed environment, and the maintainability that
come in the design phase may help a software designer to
reduce the cost of the maintainability that comes after the
delivery, so he agreed with Rimmi Saini presented in [3], and
with what I said before about this point the maintainability
that come after the delivery is very costly. He depended on the
flexibility and extendibility which are sub-characteristics of
maintainability as criteria to evaluate a maintainability model
of a class diagram and develop the Maintainability Estimation
Tool (MET) for a maintainability estimation of class diagram.
This tool helps a software designer for improves the
maintainability of class diagram in the design phase and help
reduce the increasing high cost of software maintenance
phase. Abdulrhman Albeladi et. al. [6], The maintainability
factor defines if the software can be modified and maintained.
These Modifications may be corrections, enhancement, or just
a change in the software to meet the changes in the
environment, in the requirements or the functional
specifications.
There are four factors that affect the maintainability of
software which are: (1) analyzability which measure the
ability to define fault or failure within the software, (2)
changeability that is the capability to modify software
products, (3) stability that refers to the capability to avoid
unexpected effects form changing software product, and (4)
testability which is the capability to test and validate the
modified software product [16]. Fig. 1 shows the metrics that
each factor depends on.
The maintainability
Analyzability Changeability
Cl_wmc Cl_stat
In_bases Cl_data
Cu_cdused Cl_fun
Cl_cmof
Stability
Testability Cl_data_publ
Cl_wmc
Cl_fun
Cu_cdusers
In_noc
Cu_cdused Cl_fun_publ
Fig. 1. The maintainability factors and its metrics
The formula to compute the values of the maintainability as
presented by [6] is:
ƒ‹–ƒ‹ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ൌƒŽ›œƒ„‹Ž‹–›൅Šƒ‰‡ƒ„‹Ž‹–›൅–ƒ„‹Ž‹–›
൅‡•–ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ǥሺͳሻǡ™Š‡”‡ǣ

ƒŽ›œƒ„‹Ž‹–›ൌ …Ž̴™… ൅ …Ž̴…‘ˆ ൅ ‹̴„ƒ•‡• ൅ …—̴…†—•‡†
ǥሺʹሻ
Šƒ‰‡ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ൌ…Ž̴•–ƒ–൅…Ž̴ˆ—…൅…Ž̴†ƒ–ƒǥሺ͵ሻ
–ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ൌ…Ž̴†ƒ–ƒ̴’—„Ž൅…—̴…†—•‡”•൅‹̴‘…൅…Ž̴ˆ—…̴’—„Ž
ǥሺͶሻ
‡•–ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ൌ…Ž̴™…൅…Ž̴ˆ—…൅…—̴…†—•‡†ǥሺͷሻ
519
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
Table I describes these metrics and the attributes that can be cl-wmc, cl-fun Increase the
Increase the
affected by these metrics. and in_bases are complexity testability
not accepted Effort
TABLE I. THE METRICS DEFINITION
The metric Definition Its affect Decrease the
Decrease the
Cl_wmc Weighted method per class, Complexity, changeability and the
understandability
measures the complexity of the understandability and analyzability
method. cohesion
In_bases Number of classes from which Complexity and cl-cdused,
the class inherits directly or not. understandability. cl-cdusers High coupling and
in-noc and Low cohesion Decrease the
Cu_cdused The number of directly classes Coupling, the
in_bases are not stability
used by this class. complexity and reuse
of methods. accepted
Cl_cmof The ratio between the number of The size of the class
lines of comments and the total Fig. 2. The relationship between metrics and quality attributes
number of lines in the code.
Cl_stat Number of the executable The size of the class
statements. TABLE III. DEFINIFITIONS OF MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS FACTORS
Cl_data The total number of the attributes Complexity, and the
in the class. size of the class. The Author Definition Main factor
Cl_fun The total number of the functions Complexity and D. Crabtree determine how easy it is to maintain Cost
in the class. cohesion. a system after its failure
Cl_fun_publ The total number of the public Coupling and the H. Paul how it is easy and how is faster to Time
functions in the class. polymorphism. Barringer maintain the code compared to a
Cu_cdusers The number of classes which Coupling, datum, the datum means or include
directly use this class. changeability and all the necessary actions that
reuse of methods. required to restore the item or to
In_noc The number of children of this Reuse of methods and retain an item in
class. testing Rikard Land as how easy it is to modify software The
Cl_data_publ The total number of the public Encapsulation Mälardalen or component to correct faults, to maintainability
attributes in the class. (information hiding ) improve performance or other attributes
attributes, or just adapt to any
change that occur in the
As presented in [1] Table II represents the range of acceptable environment
values for all metrics presented in Table I. Table II is used to Rimmi Saini how it is easy to modify the Testability,
analyze the results. software component to correct changeability,
faults, improve performance or analyzability
other characteristics, or adapt to a and the stability
TABLE II. THE METRICS RANGE changed environment
The metric Range (min-max) Alisara "the ease with which a software flexibility and
Cl_wmc 0-11 Hincheeranan system or component can be extendibility
Cl_fun 0-9 modified to correct faults, improve
performance or other attributes, or
Cu_cdused 0-6
adapt to a changed environment"
Cl_stat 0-7
Abdulrhman The maintainability factor defines if
Cl_data 0-25
Albeladi the software can be modified and
Cl_data_publ 0-7
maintained to correct faults,
Cu_cdusers 0-3 enhance operation, or meet the
In_noc 0-5 requirements’ changes
Cl_fun_publ 0-7
In_bases 0-4 B. Maintainability in The Android Operating Systems
Cl_cmof 0-100
Mobile applications are mostly developed using Object –
Fig. 2 shows the relationship between the metrics and the
Oriented languages such as C#, Java,…etc. So that many
quality attributes presented in [6].
researches considered Object Oriented metrics (traditional
metrics presented in Table ȱ) to be an efficient, quality
We conclude that every author defined the maintainability
indicator in measuring software quality attributes such as
attribute and the metrics that have a direct effect on it based on
understandability, usability, reliability and maintainability.
his/her opinion. Because of these reasons the maintainability is
Such of these researches presented in [17, 18,19]. Wang in his
estimated in several ways and using several metrics to predict
thesis [19] measured the maintainability of Android
its value. Table III shows how each author defines
applications by using OO metrics like number of methods in
maintainability and the main factors that can impact on the its
class, number of subclasses, lines of code, cyclomatic
value.
complexity,... etc. He developed a plugin for the Android
Studio Developers that is used to analyze Android application
source codes.
Merve Vildan ùimúek [9] presented that the Android
applications should have its own metrics to order to analyze it

520
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
because Android applications have special features that does 5. Coupling Between Object Classes(CBO): this metric
not exist in OO. Table IV shows the android metrics that can counts the number of connections to other classes from a
be used to estimate the maintainability. particular class (number of connections between the
classes). An object is coupled to another object if the
TABLE IV. ANDROID METRICS WITH OO METRICS object depends on another object to be executed.
The metric The definition
NOAC (android metric ) Number of classes that extend Activity in a Daniël Verloop [8], presented that the code smell can play
source code. an important role in the android application maintainability.
NOS (android metric ) Number of classes that extend Service in a Code smells are patterns in source code that are associated
source code.
NOCP(android metric) Number of classes that extend Contents with bad design and bad programming practices. It points to
Provider in a source code areas in an application that could benefit from altering or
NOP (android metric) Number of requested permissions that the refactoring the existing body of code or its internal structure
application should have to operate correctly without changing its external behavior so that refactoring
(<uses-permission >)
COP (OO metric ) Instability, the ratio between of efferent
helps to improve the maintainability of an application. Using
coupling to total coupling tools to find code smells and refactor the code will help
DIT (OO metric) Depth of inheritance tree improve the maintainability of applications.
NOC (OO metric) Number of children
NOM (OO metric ) Total number of the methods Geoffrey Hecht et. al. [10] used several metrics with the OO
TSDK (android metric ) Target SDK Version, this is an integer which
indicates to the target API level required the
metrics. Table V explains the android metrics that are used.
application to run
MSDK (android metric ) min SDK Version, this is an integer which TABLE V. ANDROID METRICS
indicates to the minimum API level required
The metric Where it can be used
the application to run
Number of activities Application
NOAT (OO metric) Total number of the attributes
Number Of BroadcastReceivers Application
NOC (OO metric) Total number of classes
Number Of ContentProviders Application
COH (OO metric) Lake of cohesion, how the methods within the
Number Of Services Application
same class are strongly related
IsActivity Class
CC (OO metric) Cyclomtic complexity, the number of
independent paths in the source code IsApplication Class
NOD (android metric ) Number of classes that extend Dialog in a IsBroadcastReceiver Class
source code. IsContentProvider Class
NOBR (android metric) Number of classes that extend Broadcast IsService Class
Receivers in a source code.
In this paper, the two types of metrics OO and Android
Some of these metrics can affect positively on the metrics have been used in order to build a new formula that
maintainability (DIT, NOC, NOAC, NOS, NOT, NOCP, NOS can be used to analyze the maintainability of Android
and NOTD) and other metrics affect negatively (COP and applications. The formula presented by Abdulrhman Albeladi
NOM ) [6] has been used. Moreover, some other metrics that have
presented in by Merve Vildan ùimúek [9] are also used in this
Tobias Ammann [7] presented that there is no single metric experiment.
that can be used as a basic metric to predict the application
maintainability. Some of the metrics that can be used : III. THE METHODOLOGY
1. Source Lines of Code(SLOC): this metric count the all Our methodology approach in analyzing the maintainability of
statements that exist in the source code. There are two Android applications consists of the following steps:
kinds of the counting methods: physical counting and
logical counting. 1. Select the Android application to be used
2. Cyclomatic Complexity(CC): it measures the control flow 2. Build the data sets from the system under test by
in a program (unit or module). This metric can be used by generating all the software metrics (OO and Android
the developer to determine how to modularize a software metrics).
system so the resulting modules can be testable and 3. Use the regression analysis to build the new formula
maintainable. for the maintainability quality attribute
3. Information Flow(IF): the original formula is The Henry 4. Analyze the results.
and Kafura metric, this metric measure the complexity of A. Select the Android application to be used
the information that enters and flow out of a module or
In our experiment different applications with different sizes
the component, (fan-in and the fan-out) of the component.
have been discussed. The first application is called open-
4. Depth of Inheritance Tree (DIT): depth of Inheritance
klyph, it is a free, community-driven continuation of the
Tree is an object oriented metric that measures the
Klyph Facebook client for Android. The second application is
maximum length from the node to the root of the tree for
called Anki-Android-develop, it is a flashcard application
a class.
which is fully compatible with the desktop software Anki and

521
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
the third application is called Facebook SDK for Android This more complex and error prone that the application
open-source library allows you to integrate Facebook into is likely to be.
your Android app. Table VI shows some of the properties for • The cu-cdusers metric for the three applications
these applications. exceeded the accepted range. It indicates that a
the classes inside these applications are tightly
TABLE VI. THE APPLICATIONS coupled. So the changeability will be hard.
The Applications #of packages #of classes Total lines of
code TABLE VIII. DATA SET-PART 2
App 1 92 1012 143284
Metrics App 1 App 2 App 3 Type
App 2 44 159 93314
App 3 14 107 27281 NOAC 1.4359 1.4359 0.125 android
NOS 0.5238 0.5238 0 android
B. Build the data set
NOCP 0.167 0.167 0 android
On this approach we used the OO and Android metrics to NOP 9 9 7 android
build our data set presented in Table I and Table IV COP 0.499 0.499 0.487 OO
respectively. In this paper the Android Studio is used to
TSDK 19 19 19 android
measure the all the maintainability metrics. Android Studio is
the official Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for MSDK 14 14 16 android
NOC 1012 1012 107 OO
Android app development, based on IntelliJIDEA. Moreover,
COH 0.233 0.233 2.044 OO
Android studio is a tool used to develop Android Applications
using Java Code. The metrics in android studio cannot use it NOD 0 0 0.333 OO
without having to download a plugin called metricsreloaded NOBR 0.1429 0.1429 0.4 android
[20] which is used to measure the OO and Android CC 1.969 2.479 2.779 OO
application’s metrics and the maintainability index for a given
system. Software metrics that allows you to measure C. Regression Analysis
maintainability index and another metrics type. Table VII and IBM SPSS is used to build the new formula to analyze the
Table VIII shows our data set. The data set is divided into two maintainability of Android applications based on the data set
tables because of the space issue. presented in Tables VII and VIII. "IBM SPSS Statistics are an
integrated family of products that helps to address the entire
TABLE VII. DATA SET-PART 1 analytical process, from planning and data collection to
analysis, reporting and deployment" [21]. We used
Metrics App 1 App 2 App 3 Range (min-max)
cl-wmc 16.397 16.544 23.853 0-11 The Coefficients table presented in Table IX to predict the
cl-fun 8.944 7.317 9.286 0-9 maintainability index from the software metrics, as well as
cu-cdused 6.811 13.143 10.841 0-6 determine whether a given metric contributes statistically
cl-stat 100700 15125 59622 0-7 significantly to the model (see Sig. column). The Sig. column
cl-data 5.896 5.811 6.443 0-25 indicates the statistical significance of the regression model
cl-data-pub 0.839 7.2203 0.8383 0-7
cu-cdusers 18.137 9.714 15.978 0-3
that was run. The significant value used here is 0.05.
In-noc 0.515 0.125 0.091 0-5
cl-fun-pub 5.493 4.528 5.088 0-7 We used Table IX to build the maintainability index for the
In-bases 2.343 1.857 2.018 0-4 Android applications, see equation (6) presented below.
cl-comf 12.83012 3.1572 20.95 0-100
From the Table VII we can notice the following:
• The cl_wmc metric for the three applications
exceeded the accepted range. It indicates that the
complexity of the projects is very high. This
means the three applications are difficult to
understand, and the cohesion is very low.
• The cl-fun metric for App 3 exceeded the
accepted range. It indicates that its methods are
complex and has a low cohesion between them.
• The cl-data-pub metric for App 2 exceeded the
accepted range. It indicates to a low encapsulation
• The cu-cdused metric for the three applications
exceeded the accepted range. it indicates that we
very complex applications with high coupling.
• The cl-stat metric is very high it indicates to a big
application size, the larger size of the application
ƒ‹–ƒ‹ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ൌ൅̴൅̴
൅ʹȗ̴ ൅Ǧ 
൅Ǧ
൅Ǧ൅Ǧ Ǧ
൅Ǧ൅ǦǦ
൅ʹȗǦ൅ʹȗ̴ …(6)
The definitions of the metrics used in this equation were
described in Table I, Table IV. We have to mention here that
a high value of maintainability means better maintainability of
the software.
From this formula we can notice that it is almost the same
formula that is used to measure the maintainability for OO
applications presented in [6]. As we can notice that NOP
metric is the only metric for the Android applications appeared
in the formula. This is not because the Android metrics do
have any impact in measuring the maintainability for a given
522
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
Android source code. But it's because the values of these metrics-based comparison of secondary user quality between iOS and
Android Master Thesis Software Engineering ”. August 26, 2014.
metrics for the selected applications are very small compared
[8] D. Verloop born in Vlaardingen , “ the Netherlands in the Code Smells
to the values for OO metrics. in the Mobile Applications Domain THESIS submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF
TABLE IX. THE COEFFICIENTS TABLE SCIENCE in COMPUTER SCIENCE ” , 2013
[9] M. \V. Simsek in “ a software quality model for android applications, a
thesis submitted to the graduate school of informatics of the middle east
technical university ” ,February 2016
[10] G. Hecht1, O. Benomar, R. Rouvoy1, N. Moha2 and L, Duchien1 in “
Tracking the Software Quality of Android Applications along their
Evolution ” , 17 Sep 2015.
[11] Statista.com (2016). Cumulative number of apps downloaded from the
Google Play as of May 2016 (in billions).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281106/number-of-android-
appdownloads-from-google-play. [Online; accessed October-2016].
[12] AppBrain.com (2016). AppBrain stats: Number of android applications.
http://www.appbrain.com/stats/number-of-android-apps. [Online;
accessed October-2016].
[13] Ganpati, Anita, A. Kalia, and H. Singh. “ A Comparative Study of
Maintainability Index of Open Source Software ”.International Journal
of Software and Web Sciences 3.2 (2012): 69-73.
[14] Najm, N. MAM. "Measuring Maintainability Index of a Software
Depending on Line of Code Only IOSR Journal of Computer
Engineering (IOSR-JCE),Volume 16, Issue 2, Ver. VII (Mar-Apr. 2014),
PP 64-69
[15] Bakar, A. D., Sultan, A. M., Zulzalil, H., & Din, J. (2012). “ Review
on'Maintainability' Metrics in Open Source Software ”. International
Review on Computers and Software, 7(3).
[16] Ghosh, Soumi, and S. Dubey. “Fuzzy Maintainability Model for Object
Oriented Software System. ” (2012).
[17] Y. Singh, Kaur, and Malhotra. (2010) “ Empirical validation of
IV. CONCLUSION objectoriented metrics for predicting fault proneness models”. Software
quality journal, 18(1):3–35.
The maintainability can be measured in different ways. The
[18] K. Aggarwal, Y. Singh, A. Kaur, and R. Malhotra. (2009) “ Empirical
values and the importance of the maintainability metrics analysis for investigating the effect of object-oriented metrics on fault
depend on the source code. Android applications have special proneness” a replicated case study. Software process: Improvement and
features that distinguished them. To measure the practice, 14(1):39–62.
maintainability for those kind of applications we should find a [19] Wang, “An Android Studio Plugin for Calculating and Measuring Code
Complexity Metrics in Android Applications ”, Department of Computer
new formula that takes into consideration the metrics that are and Information Sciences Towson University Towson, Maryland 2015.
related. In this paper, we have measured the maintainability [20] Metricreloaded, avialabe at: https://plugins.jetbrains.com/idea/plugin/93-
for three android projects where the calculation processes metricsreloaded.
were done per class using OO metrics and android metrics. [21] IBM SPSS, available at: http://www-
03.ibm.com/software/products/en/spss-statistics.
REFERENCES [22] F. Hanandeh, A. A. Saifan , M.Akour, N. Al-Hussein, K. Shatnawi
(2017). “ Evaluating Maintainability of Open Source Software: A Case
[1] D. Crabtree Science Space Station Program University of Ottawa Study ”. International Journal of Computer Science and Information
Canadian Space Agency Ottawa, Ont. K1N 6N5 St Hubert, PQ, J3Y Security. 15(2): 411-429.
8Y9 and, R.cheatio M Frapper, S.Matwin, A. mili. Department of
Computer University of Ottawa, Ont. K1N 6N5
[2] H. P. Barringer, P.E. Barringer & Associates, Inc. Humble, “ TX
Triplex Chapter Of The Vibrations Institute ”
[3] R.Mälardalen University Department of Computer Engineering Box 883
SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden +46 (0)21 10 70 35
[4] R. Saini, S.Dubey, and A. Rana3 in “ analytical study of maintainability
models for quality evaluation ”, June 2011
[5] A. Hincheeranan and W. Rivepiboon in “ a maintainability estimation
model and tool ” , July 2012.
[6] A. Albeladi, R. Abdalkareem, F. Agwaeten, K. Altoum, Y.Bennis, and
Z. Nasereldine. “ Toward software measurement and quality analysis of
MARF and GIPSY case studies – a Team 13 SOEN6611-S14 project
report ”.[online], July 2014. SOEN6611 Summer 2014,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0063.
[7] T.Ammann Student number 10460411 Bilderdijkkade 42h 1053VE
Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam Faculty of Science, in the “ A

523