Targets, drivers and metrics in software process improvement: Results of a survey in a multinational organization

Abstract

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)Please check the document version of this publication:• A submitted manuscript is the author's version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Abstract This paper reports on a survey amongst software groups in a multinational organization. The survey was initiated by the Software Process Improvement (SPI) Steering Committee of Philips, a committee that monitors the status and quality of software process improvement in the global organization. The paper presents and discusses improvement targets, improvement drivers, and metrics, and the degree to that they are being recognized in the software groups. The improvement targets 'increase predictability' and 'reduce defects' are being recognized as specifically important, joined for Capability Maturity Model (CMM) level three groups by 'increase productivity' and 'reduce lead time'. The set of improvement drivers that was used in the survey appears to be valid. Three improvement drivers that were rated highest were: 'commitment of engineering management', 'commitment of development staff, and 'sense of urgency'. Finally, it could be seen that metrics activity, both in size and in quality, increases significantly for CMM level three groups. However, no consensus regarding what metrics should be used can be seen.

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

“…Cost-Benefit Analysis [132], [151], [171], [227] Not stated [121], [123], [126], [131], [136], [137], [157], [159], [166], [167], [177], [184], [193], [194], [198], [205], [206], [208], [220], [249], [250] 21 of whether the assessed results are in causal relationship with the SPI initiative, is rarely discussed (see Section 3.4.7 for a more detailed discussion).…”

“…[120], [127]- [129], [131], [137], [138], [141]- [143], [146], [152], [155], [159], [160], [163], [165], [167], [168], [175], [176], [181], [187], [192], [195], [197]- [199], [201]- [204], [211]- [214], [218], [224], [228], [231], [232], [234], [237], [240], [241], [248], [249], [251], [253], [256], [257], [259]- [261], [265], [266] 57 Estimation Accuracy…”

“…[121], [127], [128], [136], [145], [147], [150], [152], [159], [165], [167], [169], [174], [180], [183], [188], [190], [191], [195], [197], [204], [208], [216], [219], [227], [229]- [231], [240], [242], [244], [247]- [249], [251], [253], [256], [257], [259], [261], [265] 41 Defects This success indicator is to group metrics that are solely intended to measure the defects without relating them to quality.…”

“…[121], [135], [146], [150], [152], [154]- [156], [166], [179], [180], [188], [191], [196], [202], [205], [206], [208], [209], [219], [238], [240], [249], [258], [260], [262], [266] 27…”

“…On the other hand, quantitative measurements as the number of customer reported failures need to be put into relation with other, possibly unknown, variables in order to be a valid measure for software quality. A decrease in product sales, an increased knowledge of the customer on how Reliability [128], [143], [176], [178], [194], [222], [224], [226], [249] 9/0.47 Maintainability [163], [174], [188], [194], [214], [242] 6/0.32…”