Software Process Improvement Based on the Method Engineering Principles

  • Marko Bajec
  • Damjan Vavpotič
  • Štefan Furlan
  • Marjan Krisper
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


While it used to be a common belief that the use of rigorous methods in software development is beneficial if not compulsory to assure success of software development projects, the investigations in practice reveal developers often avoid to follow prescribed methods and that there is a wide gap between the organizations’ official methods and the work actually performed by their developers in IT projects. According to the literature, there are many reasons contributing to this rather undesirable situation. The two of them are rigidity of methods and their social inappropriateness. In the MasterProc project we have addressed these issues by developing a framework and tool-support for the reengineering of software development methods. Using the framework an organisation can reengineer its existing ways of working into a method that is organisation-specific and auto-adjustable to specifics of its projects. The evaluation that was performed in five partner companies is motivating, as it shows the framework can be very useful in improving software development practice. This paper describes the framework philosophy and its main components.


Software Development Total Quality Management Structure Rule Software Process Improvement Information System Development 
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.

6 References

  1. 1.
    C. J. Hardy, J. B. Thompson, and H. M. Edwards, The use, limitations and customization of structured systems development methods in the UK, Information and Software Technology, 37(9), 467–477 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Huisman and J. Iivari, The individual deployment of systems development methods, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Springer 2348, 134–150, 2002).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Huisman and J. Iivari, The organizational deployment of systems development methods, Information Systems Development: Advances in Methods, Components, and Management, (Kluwer 87–99, 2003).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Fitzgerald, An empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methods, Information & Management, 34(6) 317–328 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Middleton, Managing information system development in bureaucracies, Information and Software Technology. 41(8), 473–482 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Mathiassen, Collaborative practice research. Information Technology and People, 15, 321–345 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.C. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. B. Chrisis, C. V. Weber, Capability Maturity Model for Software, version 1.1, CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, February, Software Engineering Institute (1993).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. S. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (2004).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. E. Harter, M. S. Krishnan, S. A. Slaughter, Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle time, and effort in software projects. Management Science April 46(4), 451 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. J. Parzinger, R. Nath, R., A study of the relationships between total quality management implementation factors and software quality. Total Quality Management 11(3), 353–371 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Harmsen, S. Brinkkemper, and H. Oei, Situational Method Engineering for IS Project Approaches, in: Methods and Associated Tools for the IS Life Cycle, edited by A. Verrijn-Stuart and T. W. Olle (Elsevier, 1994), pp. 169–194.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, and R. J. Welke, Method engineering: principles of method construction and tool support. Conf. on Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, selected papers. Edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, and R. J. Welke, (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1996).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Ralyté, R. Deneckère, and C. Rolland, Edited by J. Eder et al, Towards a generic model for situational method engineering (CAiSE 2003), Klagenfurt, Austria, June 16–18, 2003, (Springer, Haidelberg, 2003), pp 95–110.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Karlsson, and P. J. Ågerfalk, Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets, Information and Software Technology, 46(9), 619–633 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. B. Ayed, J. Ralyte, C. Rolland, Constructing the Lyee method with a method engineering approach, Knowledge-Based Systems 17(7–8), 239–248 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Bajec, D. Vavpotič, M. Krisper, Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods, Information and Software Technology, 49(4), 345–365 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Bajec, D. Vavpotič, and M. Krisper, The scenario and tool-support for constructing flexible, people-focused systems development methodologies, in: Proc. ISD’04, Vilnius, Lituania, (2004).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Vavpotič, M. Bajec, M. Krisper, Measuring and improving software development method value by considering technical and social suitability of its constituent elements, in: Advances in theory, practice and education: proc. of the 13th Inter. Conf. on IS Development, edited by O. Vasilecas, J. Zupančič, (Technika, Vilnius, 2004), pp. 228–238.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    CMU/SEI-2002-TR-029, Capability Maturity Model ® Integration (CMMISM), Version 1.1. SEL, (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC-15504, Information technology — software process assessment, (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO/IEC-FCD-9126-1, Software product quality — Part 1: Quality model, (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, (Free Press, New York, 2003).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    I. Ajzen, The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211 (1991). V. Venkatesh, and F. D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies, Management Science 46(2), 186–204 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Vavpotič, M. Bajec, M. Krisper, Scenarios for improvement of software development methodologies, in: Advances in information systems development. Vol. 1, Bridging the gap between academia and industry, edited by A.Q. Nilsson, R. Gustas, W. Wojtkowski, W.G. Wojtkowski, S. Wrycza and J. Zupancic, (Springer, New York, 2006), pp. 278–288.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Bajec
    • 1
  • Damjan Vavpotič
    • 1
  • Štefan Furlan
    • 1
  • Marjan Krisper
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer & Information ScienceUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations