Lightweight Software Process Improvement Using Productivity and Sustainability Improvement Planning (PSIP)

  • Michael A. Heroux
  • Elsa Gonsiorowski
  • Rinku Gupta
  • Reed Milewicz
  • J. David Moulton
  • Gregory R. Watson
  • Jim Willenbring
  • Richard J. Zamora
  • Elaine M. RaybournEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1190)


Productivity and Sustainability Improvement Planning (PSIP) is a lightweight, iterative workflow that allows software development teams to identify development bottlenecks and track progress to overcome them. In this paper, we present an overview of PSIP and how it compares to other software process improvement (SPI) methodologies, and provide two case studies that describe how the use of PSIP led to successful improvements in team effectiveness and efficiency.


Software development Software engineering Software process improvement 



Special thanks to Lois McInnes (ANL) and the members of IDEAS-ECP. Thanks to PSIP partners Danny Perez (LANL), Art Voter (LANL), Christoph Junhans (LANL), and Pavan Balaji (ANL). Images used by permission.

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and by the Exascale Computing Project (17-SC-20-SC), a collaborative effort of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration.

This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.

Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. SAND2019-9693 C.


  1. 1.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G.: Improve soft-ware quality by reusing knowledge and experience. Sloan Manag. Rev. 37, 55 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baxter, S.M., Day, S.W., Fetrow, J.S., Reisinger, S.J.: Scientific software development is not an oxymoron. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2(9), e87 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briand, L., El Emam, K., Melo, W.L.: ANSI-an inductive method for software process improvement: concrete steps and guidelines (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chrissis, M.B., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deming, W.E.: Elementary Principles of the Statistical Control of Quality: A Series of Lectures. Nippon Kegaku Gijutsu Remmei, Tokyo (1950)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisty, N.U., Thiruvathukal, G.K., Carver, J.C.: Use of software process in research software development: a survey. In: Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment on Software Engineering, pp. 276–282. ACM (2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emam, K.E., Melo, W., Drouin, J.N.: SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, D.C. (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heroux, M., et al.: Developer productivity and software sustainability report: advancing scientific productivity through better scientific software, September 2018Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holdren, J.P., Donovan, S.: National strategic computing initiative strategic plan. Technical report, National Strategic Computing Initiative Executive Council (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klünder, J., et al.: Catching up with method and process practice: an industry-informed baseline for researchers. In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, pp. 255–264. IEEE Press (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhrmann, M., Diebold, P., Münch, J.: Software process improvement: a systematic mapping study on the state of the art. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2, e62 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McIlroy, M.: Software engineering: report on a conference sponsored by the NATO science committee. In: NATO Software Engineering Conference, NATO Scientific Affairs Division, pp. 138–155 (1968)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mesh, E.S.: Supporting scientific SE process improvement. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 2, pp. 923–926. IEEE Press (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osterweil, L.: Software processes are software too. In: ICSE 1987: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, Monterey (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE Softw. 10(4), 18–27 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pettersson, F., Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T., Öhman, P.: A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. J. Syst. Softw. 81(6), 972–995 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinto, G., Wiese, I., Dias, L.F.: How do scientists develop scientific software? An external replication. In: 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2018, Campobasso, Italy, 20–23 March 2018, pp. 582–591 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stojanov, Z., Dobrilovic, D.: Learning in software process assessment based on feedback sessions outputs. In: Information Technology and Development of Education (ITRO) 2015, p. 259 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stojanov, Z.: Inductive approaches in software process assessment. In: International Conference on Applied Internet and Information Technologies (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tell, P., et al.: What are hybrid development methods made of?: an evidence-based characterization. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes, pp. 105–114. IEEE Press (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Heroux
    • 1
  • Elsa Gonsiorowski
    • 2
  • Rinku Gupta
    • 3
  • Reed Milewicz
    • 1
  • J. David Moulton
    • 4
  • Gregory R. Watson
    • 5
  • Jim Willenbring
    • 1
  • Richard J. Zamora
    • 6
  • Elaine M. Raybourn
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA
  3. 3.Argonne National LaboratoryLemontUSA
  4. 4.Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA
  5. 5.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  6. 6.NVIDIASanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations