Abstract
The discipline of information systems development has witnessed a tremendous interest in improving software processes. It is believed that improving a systems development organization’s software processes will alleviate problems with productivity and systems quality. In this paper we explore the limitations of the theories and models behind software process maturity. Through an action research project with a systems development organization, we illustrate how maturity models ignore issues ofstructural conflicts and contradictory demands manifest in most organizations. This limits the models’ ability to explain software practice and thus limits their usefulness for guiding organizational change processes.
The original version of this chapter was revised: The copyright line was incorrect. This has been corrected. The Erratum to this chapter is available at DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_33
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
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.
References
Avison, D., Lau, F., Nielsen, P. A., and Myers, M. “Action Research,” Communications of the ACM (42:1), 1999, pp. 94–97.
Bach, J. “Enough About Process: What We Need Are Heroes,” IEEE Software (12), March 1995, pp. 96–98.
Bach, J. “The Immaturity of the CMM,” American Programmer (7: 9 ), 1994, pp. 13–18.
Baskerville, R., and Pries-Heje, J. “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity,” in Informa-tion Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, T. J. Larsen, L. Levine, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Laxenburg, Austria: IFIP Press, 1999, pp. 175–196.
Bollinger, T. B., and McGowan, C. “A Critical Look at Software Capability Evaluations,” IEEE Software (8:4), 1991, pp. 25–41.
Checkland, P. “From Framework Through Experience to Learning: The Essential Nature of Action Research,” in Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland, 1991, pp. 397–403.
Drory, A., and Romm, T. “The Definition of Organizational Politics: A Review,” Human Relations (43:11), 1990, pp. 1133–1154.
Dunaway, D. K., and Masters, S. CMM-Based Appraisal forlnternal Process Improvement (CBA IPI): Method Description, Technical Report: CMU/SEI-96-TR-007, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996.
Edgar-Nevill, V. M. A. “Evaluation of the SEI Software Capability Model Within an Information Systems Context: In Pursuit of Software Quality,” in Software Quality Management II: Managing Quality Systems, Volume 1, M. Ross, C. A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton (eds.), Ashurst, UK: WIT Press, 1994, pp. 263–278.
Enam, K. E., Drouin, J.-N., and Melo, W. The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.
Humphrey, W. S. Managing the Software Process, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
Keil, M., and Robey, D. “Turning Around Troubled Software Projects: An Exploratory Study of the De-escalation of Commitment to Failing Courses of Action,” Journal of Management Information Systems (15:4), 1999, pp. 63–87.
Knights, D., and Murray, F. Managers Divided., Chichester, England: John Wiley Sons, 1994.
Kohoutek, H. J. “Reflections on the Capability and Maturity Models of Engineering Processes,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International (12:2), 1996, pp. 147–155.
Kuvaja, P., Similä, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, W., Saukkonen, S., and Koch, G. Software Process Assessment and Improvement: The Bootstrap Approach, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994.
Linberg, K. R. “Software Developer Perceptions About Software Project Failure: A Case Study,” The Journal of Systems and Software (49), 1999, pp. 177–192.
Mathiassen, L., and Sorensen, C. “The Capability Maturity Model and CASE,” Information Systems Journal (6), 1996, pp. 195–208.
O’Connel, E., and Saiedian, H. “Can You Trust Software Capability Evaluations,” IEEE Computer (33:2), 2000, pp. 28 –35.
Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2’d Edition), New York: Sage Publications, 1990.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., and Weber, C. V. Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1. 93-TR-024,Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1993http://www.sei.cmu.edu (/publications/documents/93. reports/93.tr.024.html).
Sawyer, P., Sommerville, I., and Viller, S. “Requirements Process Improvement Through the Phased Introduction of Good Practice,” Software Process: Improvement and Practice (3), 1997, pp. 19–34.
Sharp, H., Woodman, M., Hovenden, F., and Robinson, H. “The Role of ‘Culture’ in Successful Software Process Improvement,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth EUROMICRO Conference—Informatics: Theory and Practice for the New Millennium, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computing Society Press, 1999, pp. 170–176.
Smith, W. L., Fletcher, R. I., Gray, E. M., and Hunter, R. B. “Software Process Improvement: The Route to Software Quality?” in Software Quality Management II: Managing Quality Systems, Volume 1, M. Ross, C. A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton (eds.), Ashurst, UK: WIT Press, 1994, pp. 193–211.
Stelzer, D., Mellis, W., and Herzwurm, G. “Technology Diffusion in Software Development Processes: The Contribution of Organizational Learning to Software Process Improvement,” in Information Systems Innovation and Diffusion: Issues and Directions, T. J. Larsen and E. McGuire (eds.), Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 1998, pp. 297–344.
Velden, M. J. v.d., Vreke, J., Wal, B. v.d., and Symons, A. “Experiences with the Capability Maturity Model in a Research Environment,” Software Quality Journal (5), 1996, pp. 87–95.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nielsen, P.A., Nørbjerg, J. (2001). Software Process Maturity and Organizational Politics. In: Russo, N.L., Fitzgerald, B., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 66. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-6366-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-35489-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive