A Case Study on Scenario-based Process Flexibility Assessment for Risk Reduction

  • Josef Nedstam
  • Martin Höst
  • Björn Regnell
  • Jennie Nilsson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2188)


Flexibility is a desired quality of software processes. Process flexibility implies a capability to adapt to new contexts. Another aspect of flexibility is the cost of maintaining process effectiveness as new situations arise. A lack of preparedness for future events may constitute a high risk to a software development organization. This paper presents a method for assessing the flexibility of an organization and its processes. The assessment method is scenario-based and provides an estimate of process flexibility in terms of risk. The method is evaluated in a case study, where the process flexibility at a telecommunication software developer has been assessed. The case study indicates that the method is feasible and effective, and that the cost of conducting scenario-based process flexibility assessment is reasonable. The proposed method was able to identify a number of relevant areas to be improved in order to reduce risks of inflexibility for the particular process.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Basili, V. R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H. D.: The Experience Factory. In: Marciniak, J. J. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1994) 469–476Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zahran, S.: Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success. Addison-Wesley, Harlow, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 6th Edition. Addison-Wesley, Harlow, UK (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nelson, K. M., Nelson, H. J., Ghods, M.: Technology Flexibility: Conceptualization, Validation, and Measurement. In: Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., Sprague, R. H. Jr. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 3. IEEE, Los Alamitos, California (1997) 76–87Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jarke, M., Kurki-Suonio, R.: Guest Editorial: Introduction to the Special Issue: Scenario Management. In: Kemmerer, R. A., Ghezzi, C. (Eds.): IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 12, December 1998, IEEE, Washington (1998) 1033–1035Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scriven, M.: Evaluation Thesaurus, 4th Edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robson, C.: Real World Research: A Resource For Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, UK (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ares, J., García, R., Juristo, N., López, M., Moreno, A. M.: A More Rigorous and Comprehensive Approach to Software Process Assessment. In: Perry, D. E., Schäfer, W., Tully, C. (Eds.): Software Process: Improvement and Practice 2000; 5. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., UK (2000) 3–30Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Regnell, B., Höst, M., Natt och Dag, J., Berenmark, P., Hjelm, T.: An Industrial Case Study on Distributed Prioritisation in Market-Driven Requirements Engineering for Packaged Software. In: Loucopoulos, P., Potts, C. (Eds.): Requirements Engineering Journal 2001; 6. Springer-Verlag Ltd., London, UK (2001) 51–62Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fusaro, P., El Emam, K., Smith, B.: Evaluating the Interrater Agreement of Process Capability Ratings. In: Bieman, J. (Chair): Proceedings of the Fourth International Software Metrics Symposium, IEEE, Washington (1997) 2–11Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wohlin, C., Regnell, B.: Strategies for Industrial Relevance in Software Engineering Education. In: Glass, R. L. (Ed.): Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 49, No. 2-3, 125–134. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, NL (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Nedstam
    • 1
  • Martin Höst
    • 1
  • Björn Regnell
    • 1
  • Jennie Nilsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Communication SystemsLund Institute of TechnologyLundSweden
  2. 2.Ericsson Mobile Communications ABLundSweden

Personalised recommendations