Since the beginning of the 1990s, process improvement was considered as a formal issue. Focus was on process description, and improvement was a somewhat better description. Also, process improvement was driven by the customer side. Currently, we see a move forward to focus on people because they are recognised as key success factors. The first model that really emphasised the ownership and empowerment of people was the Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (PEMM) model of Michael Hammer [14]. In the IT community, Ivar Jacobson [15] developed his approach while criticising the current process description approach. At the same time, Jan Pries-Heje did research related to effective Software Process Improvement (SPI) approaches [6].In 2007, a first attempt was made to develop a training curriculum for SPI Management. From the very beginning, it was clear that people are a key factor to be addressed. This process of reorientation of the SPI community reached a milestone, when the SPI manifesto [12] was published and the Skill Card for the SPI Manager Qualification Scheme was approved by the authorised Job Role committee. Right now, the first training is delivered and experience is excellent.

SUMMARY Software process improvement (SPI) can be seen as a profession having its own competence needs and its own community of interest. European projects EQN and EU Cert have defined skill sets and a common certification scheme for about 20 professions, mainly in the IT domain. European Certification and Qualification Association ECQA is created to manage certification and provide the necessary infrastructure. A common way to approach the IT domain from a process perspective is the ‘3S’ concept (Software, Systems, Services). Software process can be seen as the first spearhead among these. The first software process models, such as CMM and SPICE, have already existed for about 20 years. With all the experience that the models bring, it is reasonable to start the PI profession from the software process. Software Process Improvement Manager (SPI Manager) is one of the new topics in ECQA. The development of the SPI Manager training and certification scheme has been done in many small steps so far. This paper explains the current structure and the main components of SPI Manager competences, training needs and the certification scheme. Several other schemes will be developed in the future for process improvement‐related competences. The current version of the SPI Manager skill set is mainly based on software, systems and service processes and their related reference models. It could also be used in the future in domains other than IT. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract. The practice of software development has evolved considerably in recent decades, with new programming technologies, the affordability of hardware, pervasive internet access and mobile computing all contributing to the emergence of new software development processes. The newer process initiatives, which include those which are sometimes referred to as agile or lean methods, have brought with them new terms, which sometimes reflect the introduction of novel concepts. Other times, new terms correspond to long established concepts that have been repackaged. The net position is that we have a proliferation of language and term usage in the software development process domain, a problem which has implications for assessors and assessment frameworks, and for the broader community. In this paper, we explore this problem, finding that it is worthy of further research. Plus, we identify a technique suited to addressing this concern: the establishment of a canonical software process ontological model.

Software Process Improvement (SPI) activities aim at driving change in information technology development towards increased quality and productivity levels. The SPI Manifesto describes the key values and principles for a successful implementation of SPI. About two‐thirds of its principles relate to human, social, and organizational aspects and one‐third to technical aspects. This raises the question if these aspects have a relationship with ‘social responsibility’ principles. The new ISO 26000:2010 standard provides guidance about social responsibility (SR), describing the core subjects and issues an organization has to consider when implementing SR. In this paper, we describe how the values and principles of the SPI Manifesto have a relationship with the SR issues described in the ISO 26000. In addition, this paper describes about the steps taken in an industry group to exchange best practices about how social strategies can be used to achieve higher acceptance and sustainability of SPI initiatives. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract