Measurement has a high cost; too much investment is required and the return is too low.

This statement is a common myth and a frequently cited reason for not implementing a software measurement program. However, from a quality assurance and process improvement perspective, it is fundamentally false. A well-designed measurement program provides a significant return on investment (ROI) by enabling data-driven decision-making, identifying areas for process improvement, reducing rework, and increasing predictability. The cost of not measuring—which includes the costs of undetected defects, schedule overruns, and customer dissatisfaction—is almost always higher than the cost of implementing a focused and effective metrics program. The key is to measure what is important and aligned with business objectives, not to measure everything.

The statement "True" is incorrect because it contradicts the core principles of modern quality management and process improvement frameworks (like CMMI or ISO standards). These frameworks are built on the premise that you cannot control or improve what you cannot measure. To assert that measurement's return is inherently too low is to reject the foundational basis of software quality engineering and a central tenet of the CSQA body of knowledge.

1. Source: Kan, S. H. (2003). Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering, 2nd Edition. Addison-Wesley Professional.

Citation: Chapter 2, "A Measurement and Analysis Framework," explains that the purpose of measurement is to provide objective, quantitative information for decision-making. The entire premise of the book is that a well-implemented metrics program is an investment that yields significant returns in quality and productivity, directly refuting the claim that the return is "too low."

2. Source: Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute. (2010). CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 (CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033).

Citation: The "Measurement and Analysis (MA)" Process Area is a required component for achieving CMMI Maturity Level 2 and above. Specific Goal 1 (SG 1) states, "Align Measurement and Analysis Activities," which requires that measurement objectives be traced to business objectives. This linkage ensures that the investment in measurement provides a tangible return by supporting critical organizational goals. The inclusion of this entire process area confirms the high value placed on measurement.

3. Source: Fenton, N., & Bieman, S. L. (2014). Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 3rd Edition. CRC Press.

Citation: Chapter 1, "Measurement: What Is It and Why Do It?," Section 1.3, "Applying the framework to software," details the reasons for measurement, including to assess the quality of products, the effectiveness of processes, and to control projects. The authors argue that without measurement, management is based on intuition rather than fact, which is a far costlier and riskier approach.