SDSEM: Software Development Success Evolution Model

  • Haeng-Kon Kim
  • Sang-Yong Byun
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3982)


Each company of organization should develop its own model or tailor the above models to make them suitable to its unique environment such as product or technology domain, scale of business or organization and cultural environment, etc for the practical application. In this paper, we introduces a case in which organizational and technical capability was reinforced based on our own process capability improvement model which is named SDSEM (S/W Competence Reinforcement Model) to improve S/W development strength in a corporate, which manufactures varieties of consumer electronics products which are embedding controller S/W as its brain and in which large-scale development organization has multi-site development environments.

We evaluated SDSEM as a very practical but limited model against our goal by introducing and applying to business units.


Business Unit Development Competence Action Item Organization Hierarchy Technology Classification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    KSPICE (Korea Association of Software process Assessors), SPICE Assessment Report (2002-2004),
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 15504: Information Technology-Software Process Assessment, ISO, ver.3.3 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paulk, M.C., Konrad, M.D., Garcia, S.M.: CMM versus SPICE Architectures. Software Process Newsletter 3, 7–11 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paulk, M.C.: The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison-Wesley publishing, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC 15504-1:2004, Information technology – Process assessment – Part 1: Concepts and vocabulary (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, B., Port, D.: Escaping the Software Tar Pit: Model Clashes and How to Avoid Them. Software Engineering Notes, Association for Computing Machinery, 36–48 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seama, C.B., Basili, V.R.: Communication and Organization in Software Development: An empirical Study. IBM Systems Journal 36(4) (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse, pp. 15–24. Addison Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tomer, A., Schach, S.R.: The evolution tree: a maintenance-oriented software development model. In: Proceedings of the Fourth European, Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp. 209–214 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lattanze, A.J., Rosso-Llopart, M.: Managing cyclical software development, Engineering and Technology Management, 1998. Pioneering New Technologies: Management Issues and Challenges in the Third Millennium. In: International Conference on IEMC 1998 Proceedings, pp. 62–70 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haeng-Kon Kim
    • 1
  • Sang-Yong Byun
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Information & Communication EngineeringCatholic University of DaeguKorea
  2. 2.Division of Computer Information & Communication EngineeringCheJu National UniversityKorea

Personalised recommendations