BOOTSTRAP: A software process assessment and improvement methodology

Similä, S; Kuvaja, Pasi; Krzanik, Lech

doi:10.1007/3-540-59449-3_22

Cited by 30 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditional SPI initiatives are based on normative models (e.g., Emam, Drouin, and Melo 1998;Kuvaja 1994;Paulk et al 1993), but none of these models were considered useful by the SPI group or the developers. The SPI group, therefore, decided to use problem diagnosis techniques rather than assessments based on general models to learn what the developers considered to be key problems.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 2 presents and discusses a particular research project in which a large group of researchers and practitioners worked together to understand, support, and improve systems development practice based on the so-called Software Process Improvement (SPI) paradigm (see, for example, Emam, Drouin, and Melo 1998;Humphrey 1988Humphrey , 1989Kuvaja et al 1994;Paulk et al 1993). Based on this case and on the related tradition for doing practice research, I review classical issues and state-of-the-art literature related to research goals (section 3), research approaches (section 4), and research results (section 5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaborative Practice Research

Mathiassen

2000

Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Practice Research

Mathiassen

2000

Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Software process assessment models such as CMM [44] and BOOTSTRAP [32] utilize the concept of staging in defining maturity levels, which illustrate qualitatively the maturity of the software engineering process. Similarly, the framework for the organizational maturity model presented in this paper also uses the approach of staging.…”

Section: Framework Of Organizational Maturity Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

An organizational maturity model of software product line engineering

Ahmed

Capretz

2009

Software Qual J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/electricalpub Part of the Software Engineering CommonsCitation of this paper: @article{DBLP:journals/sqj/AhmedC10, author = {Faheem Ahmed and Luiz Fernando Capretz}, title = {An organizational maturity model of software product line engineering}, journal = {Software Quality Journal}, volume = {18}, number = {2}, year = {2010}, pages = {195-225}, ee = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-009-9088-5}, bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de} } The Organizational Maturity Model of Software Product Line EngineeringAbstract: Software product line engineering is an inter-disciplinary concept. It spans the dimensions of business, architecture, process and the organization. Some of the potential benefits of this approach include cost reduction, improvements in product quality and a decrease in product development time. The increasing popularity of software product line engineering in the software industry necessitates a process maturity evaluation methodology. Accordingly, this paper presents an organizational maturity model of software product line engineering for evaluating the maturity of organizational dimension. The model assumes that organizational theories, behavior and management play a critical role in the institutionalization of software product line engineering within an organization. Assessment questionnaires and a rating methodology comprise the framework of this model. The objective and design of the questionnaires is to collect information about the software product line engineering process from the dual perspectives of organizational behavior and management. Furthermore, we conducted two case studies and reported the assessment results using the organizational maturity model presented in this paper.

show abstract

“…Some of these approaches include CMM [3], CMMI [4], SPICE [5] and Bootstrap [6]. However, these models are very descriptive in the sense that they explain essential attributes that would be expected to characterize an organization at a particular maturity level, but they don't specify neither how to improve nor the specific means to get into a particular maturity level.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%