An analysis of some ‘core studies’ of software process improvement

Abstract

In this paper we analyse 39 publications that have reported issues relating to software process improvement. Together, the 39 publications refer to 14 sites in 11 organizations. The 11 organizations include all five of the organizations that have been awarded the IEEE Computer Society Award for Process Achievement. Twelve of the 14 sites have been assessed at CMM level 3 or higher. Two main issues, and a number of more specific issues, emerge from our analysis. The two main issues are organizational stability and process expertise. We further distinguish between inter‐ and intra‐organizational stability. Several other specific issues are identified and discussed. We direct attention at how the specific issues relate to each other, how the two main issues relate to each other, and how all these issues relate to software process improvement. We speculate that organizational stability provides a stable environment within which to perform the process and to develop expertise. In addition to the 39 publications, the paper provides cross‐references to survey studies and other case studies on process improvement, and studies into process understanding. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Software Process Improvement as organizational change: A metaphorical analysis of the literature

“…However, a homogeneous organizational context (i.e. with common beliefs and values) is in a more favorable position for doing SPI; such a context is characterized by a high degree of employee satisfaction and motivation and by having a tradition of following documented procedures and instructions (Yamamura, 1999;Boehm, 2000;Rainer and Hall, 2001). Such an organizational context can be nurtured, among other things, by offering group training that fosters a common understanding and encourages process diffusion (Wohlwend and Rosenbaum, 1993).…”

“…Abrahamsson (2001) (2007), and Wohlwend and Rosenbaum (1993) Multi-perspective Multiple perspectives on SPI in organizations Different SPI agent roles and the prospects for change Iversen and Mathiassen (2003), Johansen and Pries-Heje (2007), Kautz et al (2001), Kautz and Nielsen (2004), and Rainer and Hall (2001) meate maturity models like the CMM (Baskerville and Pries-Heje, 1999). The organization as culture metaphor has drawn researchers' attention to the impact of employee satisfaction and motivation on success in SPI (Yamamura, 1999).…”

“…Reducing intraorganizational staff movement strengthens understanding of processes and roles which, in turn, supports SPI. Organizational culture can support process expertise and foster new work habits (Rainer and Hall, 2001).…”

A survey of software project managers on software process change

“…They summarized the factors identified through a survey conducted by other researchers and themselves in their previous work [6]. These factors were then compared with those identified through a group interview.…”

From pragmatic to systematic software process improvement: an evaluated approach

“…Our proposed approach precisely defines the artefacts allowing for creating a model of the expected results that can be tested, for example, for completeness and consistency. Furthermore, an artefact‐based approach allows for bridging the gap between single SPI project instances and organisation‐wide SPI programs to provide SPI projects with a stable environment as, for instance, recommended by Rainer and Hall [30]. Artefact models remain stable and only the respective methods for the artefact creation need to be adapted for the respective context, which allows for, for example, a flexible tailoring of improvement endeavours as considered crucial by Melzer and Stellis [28].…”