Entropy based software processes improvement

Abstract

Actual results of software process improvement projects show different levels of success. Although many software development organisations have adopted improvement models such as CMMI, it appears to be difficult to improve software development processes in the right way, e.g. tuned to the actual needs of the organisation. This paper presents a new approach to determine the direction of improvement for an organisation. This approach is based on an elaboration of the concept of entropy. The approach is empirically validated by carrying out interviews in 11 software development organisations in The Netherlands. The results of the research show that software development organisations can be classified and can be positioned on the basis of their internal and external entropy, c.q. the level of (dis)order in the business system and its environment. Based on a possible out-of-balance situation between the internal and external entropy, directions for software process improvement can be discussed. As such the proposed approach can support the application of current software process improvement methodologies such as the CMMI.

Properties that influence business process management maturity and its effect on organizational performance

“…It has also been argued that each organization should allow for an amount of 'entropy' in its processes that is appropriate for the environment in which it operates. This includes allowing for the 'entropy' that is related to an external pressure to deliver innovative products (Trienekens et al 2008). These Improved control Improved product quality and productivity Improved communication Improved flexibility Herbsleb and Zubrow (1997), Secondary data CMM Improved product quality and Herbsleb and Goldenson (1996) (138 respondents) productivity Improved ability to meet schedule and budget Improved customer satisfaction Improved staff morale Krishnan and Kellner (1999), Secondary data Presence of CMM Improved product quality and Krishnan and Kriebel (2000) ( 43 units Deephouse et al (1995) Survey Presence of CMM Improved product quality (87 respondents) Specific Practices Improved ability to meet schedule and budget and budget Jung and Goldenson (2003) Secondary data CMM Improved ability to meet schedule and (752 units) budget Filbeck et al (2013) Secondary data CMM Improved stock performance (348 units) findings point towards a possible negative relation between innovativeness and BPM maturity, with more innovative organizations striving for lower levels of BPM maturity.…”

Software product evolution for Intellectual Capital Management: The case of Meta4 PeopleNet

“…The role of software product manager has been addressed in the literature (e.g. Barney, Aurum & Wohlin, 2008;Fricker, Gorschek, Byman, & Schmidle, 2010;Karlsson, Dahlstedt, Regnell, Natt och Dag, & Persson, 2007;Lehtola & Kauppinen, 2006;Trienekens, Kusters, Kriek, & Siemons, 2009;Weerd, Brinkkemper & Versendaal, 2010) although the product manager's role in software engineering has so far not been summarized in a comprehensive perspective (Ebert, 2007). The product manager is responsible, among other things, for product definition, product release and product lifecycles, creating an effective multifunctional product introduction team and -above all -preparing and implementing the business case (Ebert, 2007).…”

Toward objective software process information: experiences from a case study

“…In CMMI assessments, strengths and weaknesses of so-called key process areas are investigated by means of interviews and document studies. Subsequently, organization-wide improvement programs are determined (Trienekens et al 2009). Although valuable results have been achieved in SPI, no explicit models of 'actual' development processes are being constructed.…”

“…Software development reflects a large variety of processes, of which many are difficult to define and consequently difficult to improve. Over the last decades, process assessment and improvement have become major topics in the software development domain (Humphrey 1995), (SEI 2006), and (Trienekens et al 2009). …”