Advertisement

Project Management in Small-Sized Software Enterprises: A Metamodeling-Based Approach

  • I. GarciaEmail author
  • C. Pacheco
  • M. Arcilla
  • N. Sanchez
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 405)

Abstract

Software development involves a unique effort that comprises managing many activities, resources, skills, and people to build a quality product. Thus, this effort is frequently seen from two different perspectives: the software development perspective and the project management perspective. Nowadays, any software enterprise that aims to develop high quality products should perform an adequate combination of both perspectives. However, such integration is generally not well addressed by the small-sized software enterprises due to the lack of knowledge, resources and time. In this sense, this paper introduces a metamodel to define a “lite” version of the project management process and to manage the generated knowledge during the software development.

Keywords

Software process improvement Project management Metamodel Small-sized software enterprises Small teams 

References

  1. 1.
    Turner, R., Ledwith, A., Kelly, J.: Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: matching processes to the nature of the firm. Int. J. Project Manage. 28(8), 744–755 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richardson, I.: Why are small software organizations different? IEEE Softw. 24(1), 18–22 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ribaud, V., Saliou, P., O’Connor, R.V., Laporte, C.Y.: Software engineering support activities for very small entities. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement, vol. 99, pp. 165–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turner, R., Ledwith, A., Kelly, J.: Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: tailoring the practices to the size of company. Manage. Decis. 50(5), 942–957 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Bridging metamodels and ontologies in software engineering. J. Syst. Softw. 84(2), 301–313 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Callegari, D.A., Bastos, R.M.: Project management and software development processes: integrating RUP and PMBOK. In: 2007 International Conference on Systems Engineering and Modeling (ICSEM ‘07), pp. 1–8. IEEE Computer Society, California (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adolph, S., Kruchten, P., Hall, E.: Reconciling perspectives: a grounded theory of how people manage the process of software development. J. Syst. Softw. 85(6), 1269–1286 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feiler, P., Humphrey, W.: Software process development and enactment: concepts and definitions. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-92-TR-004, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The situational factors that affect the software development process: towards a comprehensive reference framework. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(5), 433–447 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCormack, A., Crandall, W., Henderson, P., Toft, P.: Do you need a new product-development strategy? Aligning process with context. Res. Technol. Manage. 55(1), 34–43 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spalek, S.: Does investment in project management pay off? Ind. Manage. & Data Syst. 114(5), 832–856 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ståhl, D., Bosch, J.: Modeling continuous integration practice differences in industry software development. J. Syst. Softw. 87, 48–59 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cerón, R., Dueñas, J.C., Serrano, E., Capilla, R.: A meta-model for requirements engineering in system family context for software process improvement using CMMI. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) Product Focused Software Process Improvement, vol. 3547, pp. 173–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Méndez, D., Penzenstadler, B., Kuhrmann, M., Broy, M.: A meta model for artefact-orientation: fundamentals and lessons learned in requirements engineering. In: Petriu, D., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6395, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goknil, A., Kurtev, I., van de Berg, K., Spijkerman, W.: Change impact analysis for requirements: A metamodeling approach. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(8), 950–972 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: A comparison of four process metamodels and the creation of a new generic standard. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47(1), 49–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ayed, H., Vanderose, B., Habra, N.: A metamodel-based approach for customizing and assessing agile methods. In: 8th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), pp. 66–74, IEEE Computer Society, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    García, F., Serrano, M., Cruz-Lemus, J., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Managing software process measurement: A metamodel-based approach. Inf. Sci. 177(12), 2570–2586 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Colombo, A., Damiani, E., Frati, F., Ontolina, S., Reed, K., Ruffatti, G.: The use of a meta-model to support multi-project process measurement. In: 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC ’08), pp. 503–510. IEEE Computer Society, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martins, P.V., da Silva, A.R.: PIT-ProcessM: a software process improvement meta-model. In: 7th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), pp. 453–458. IEEE Computer Society, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tian, L., Zeng, G.Y., Yu, L., Zhu, B.: Research and implementation of software process metamodel for CMMI. Comput. Eng. Design 18, 245–267 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Banhesse, E.L., Salviano, C.F., Jino, M.: Towards a metamodel for integrating multiple models for process improvement. In: 38th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 315–318. IEE Computer Society, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abels, S., Ahlemann, F., Hahn, A., Hausmann, K., Strickmann, J.: PROMONT—a project management ontology as a reference for virtual project organizations. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, vol. 4277, pp. 813–823. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Velić, M., Padavić, I., Dobrović, Ž.: Metamodel of agile project management and the process of building with LEGO® bricks. In: 23rd Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (CECIIS), pp. 481–193. University of Zagreb, Varazdin (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mas, A., Mesquida, L.A.: Software project management in small and very small entities. In: 8th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), pp. 1–6. IEEE Computer Society, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Atkinson, C.: Metamodelling for distributed object environments. In: First International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOC’97), pp. 90–101. IEEE Computer Society, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission.: ISO/IEC 24744. Software Engineering—Metamodel for Development Methodologies. ISO, Geneva (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Modelling software development methodologies: a conceptual foundation. J. Syst. Softw. 80(11), 1778–1796 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Object Management Group. Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification, Version 2.0. http://doc.omg.org/formal/08-04-01.pdf (2008). Accessed 1 July 2015
  30. 30.
    Sanchéz-Gordón, M.L., O’Connor, R.V.: Understanding the gap between software process practices and actual practice in very small companies. Softw. Qual. J. (2015). doi: 10.1007/s11219-015-9282-6 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division de Estudios de PosgradoUniversidad Tecnologica de la MixtecaHuajuapan de LeónMexico
  2. 2.Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros InformáticosUniversidad Nacional de Educación a DistanciaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations